[PDF]

Economic Education for Citizenship. PDF Free Download

1 / 123
1 views•123 pages

Economic Education for Citizenship. PDF Free Download

Economic Education for Citizenship. PDF free Download. Think more deeply and widely.

ED 296 947
AUTHOR
TITLE
INSTITUTION
SPONS AGENCY
REPORT NO
PUB DATE
CONTRACT
NOTE
AVAILABLE FROM
PUB TYPE
EDRS PRICE
DESCRIPTORS
DOCUMENT RESUME
SO 019 340
Miller, Steven L.
Econovdc Education for Citizenship.
ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science
Education, Bloomington, IN.; Foundation for Teaching
Economics, San Francisco, Calif.; Social Studies
Development Center, Bloomington, Ind.
Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),
Washington, DC.
ISBN-0-941339-06-8
88400-86-0020
125p.
Publications Manager, Social Studies Development
Center, Indiana Unive sity, 2805 East Tenth St.,
Bloomington, IN 47408.
Books (010) Reports - Descriptive (141) --
Information Analyses - ERIC Information Analysis
Products (071)
MF01/PC05 Plus Postage.
*Citizenship; *Citizenship Education; Curriculum;
*Curriculum Design; *Economics; *Economics Education;
Elementary Secondary Education; Instructional
Materials; Models; Social Studies
ABSTRACT Economics is an important part of the U.S. social
studies core curriculum, and this book considers the role of
economics education in the development of citizenship skills. Chapter
1 describes' (1) citizenship and economic literacy; (2) the amount of
economics educ:tion to offer; (3) economics in relation to economic
education; and (4) decision-making in terms of economics and values.
Chapter 2 considers the status of economics education in schools and
argues for a combination of economics education infusion into
existing grades K-12 courses, along with a required high school
course. Chapter 3 discusses economics instruction in terms of a model
that centers on economic reasoning for effective citizenship and
suggests teaching economics based on learning theory research and on
established teaching practices. Chapter 4 examines: (1) evaluative
materials selection techniques for teachers; (2) the economics
content of social studies textbooks; (3) reviews of economics
textbooks; and (4) other classroom materials, such as videocassettes
and teacher's guides. Figures are included, and a bibliography of
teaching materials and Educational Resources Information Center
(ERIC) resources contains 288 references. (JHP)
********************************* k************************************
*Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *
*from the original document. *
*********************************************************************
Economic Education
for Citizenship
by Steven L. Miller
Foundation for Teaching Economics
Social Studies Development Center
ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Sci-ice Education
1988
ORDERING INFORMATION
This publication is available from
Publications Manager
Social Studies Development Center
Indiana University
2805 East Tenth Street
Bloomington, Indiana 47405
(812) 335-3838
ISBN 0-941339-06-8
This publication was developed in 1987 by the
ERIC Clearinghouse cor Social Studies/Social Sci-
ence Education at Indiana University and published
in 1988. Co-publishers are the Social Studies De-
velopment Center of Indiana University and the
Foundation for Teaching Economics of San Fran-
cisco, California.
This publication was prepared with funding from
the Office of Educational Research and Improve-
ment, U.S. Department of Education, under con-
tract no. 400-86-0020. The opinions expressed do
not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of
OERI or ED.
fi
4
Contents
About the Author iv
Foreword v
Acknowledgments vi
Chapter I
Economic Literacy and Citizenship 1
Chapter II
Economics in the Curriculum 17
Chapter III
Instruction in Economics 43
Chapter TV
Instructional Materials for Economic Literacy 65
Bibliography
Teaching Materials and ERIC Resources 99
Appendix 115
iii
About the Author
Steven L Miller is executive director of the Central Ohio
Center for Economic Education and an assistant professor of edu-
cational studies at The Ohio State University's College of Educa-
tion. He is the author or co-author of numerous papers and journal
articles on various facets of economic education. Dr. Miller served
as guest editor of the summer 1987 issue of Theory Into Practice;
the theme of tli:- special issue is "Developing Economic Literacy."
He is coauthor and editor of a volume of learning materials for
use in secondary schools, Economics and National Security; this
book was developed at The Ohio State University's Mershon Center
and is scheduled for publication in 1988 by Addison-Wesley. Dr.
Miller also is co-author of a Master Curriculum Guide in Econom-
ics, Teaching Strategies: High School Economics Courses, which
was published in 1985 by the Joint Council on Economic Edu-
cation. In addition to his research, writing, and curriculum de-
velopment activities, Dr. Miller has served as a consultant in
economic education to many school districts and educational
agencies throughout the United States.
iv
Foreword
Schools in the United States are expected to educate students
for responsible citizenship in a free society. Essential elements of
this education for citizenship are knowledge of history and the
social sciences (including economics), ability to use that knowl-
edge to intelligently participate in public affairs, and interest in
civic activity on behalf of both individual and community goals.
Steven L Miller argues persuasively in this publication that
knowledge of economics is an especially important part of the
core curriculum of schools. He contends in the first chapter that
economic literacy is an indispensable facet of general education
for citizenship in the United States. In the second chapter, Dr.
Miller describes the status of economic education in the curric-
ulum of schools. Later portions of the book explain how the goal
of economic literacy, as part of responsible citizenship, can be
accomplished thorough curriculum development, classroom in-
struction, and efluutional materials.
This publication will be useful to various groups of readers.
Economic educators 'will be interested in the synthesis of impor-
tant research on curriculum, instruction, and materials; fresh re-
search-based conclusions are presented, as well as suggestions
about areas for future study and research. In addition, economic
educators are likely to find the links to issues in the larger domain
of social studies education to be useful. It is likely that educators
in the social studies will learn more about the distinct viewpoint
held by many economists and economic educators about the fun-
damental philosophy of economics and its relationship to citizen-
ship education. They may discern opportunities to influence
economic education with ideas and knowledge developed in their
areas of specialty within the social studies. Finally, this book is
likely to help teachers connect economic education with citizen-
ship and employ effective teaching strategies and materials in the
classroom.
John J. Patrick
Director, ERIC Clearinghouse for Social
Studies/Social Science Education and
Director, Social Studies Development
Center at Indiana University
Acknowledgments
If this book promotes greater economic literacy and more
effective citizenship education, it is a success that must be shared
with several individuals who provided helpful suggestions during
the development of the book. In particular, the author thanks
Abbejean Kehler and two reviewers who made many valuable
comments that led to improvements in the manuscript.
The author is also grateful for support provided by the Foun-
dation for Teaching Economics (FTE), which is located in San
Francisco, California. In particular, Dr. Ronald A. Banaszak, Vice
President for Educational Programs of the FTE, was very supportive
and helpful during the development of the manuscript and pro-
duction of the book.
vi
2Economic Education for Citizenship
All of this seemed prudent enough at the time. Readers will
remember that twice in the 1970s supply interruptions produced
lines at the gasoline pumps, rationing by license plate number and
gas station hours, and world oil prices that quadrupled (after ad-
justing for inflation) during the next ten years. The crisis seemed
also to have hit natural gas. Natural gas distributors stopped taking
on new customers and shut off service to indlstrial and commer-
cial users during several harsh winters. Sluggish economic per-
formance and double digit inflation were also partly the result of
the energy problem.
The crisis atmosphere was accentuated by the media and
schools. For instance, as late as 1981 a special issue of National
Geographic devoted entirely to energy suggested oil prices of $80
per barrel by 1985 and nearly complete oil depletion by the early
21st century.' In our schools teachers used some materials that
taught students that natural gas would be virtually gone by the
year 2020 and cil by 1985!2
However, the basic fuel of the energy crisis was economic
illiteracy. Without an understanding of the fundamertal ideas of
economics (supply, demand, markets, etc.), the citizenry was un-
prepared for the events of the energy crisis. To the economically
illiterate, the disappearance of the crisis seems as befuddling as its
sudden appearance. The residue of public fear and confusion re-
mains, as indicated by calls for government action against oil im-
ports in the wake of OPEC's recent attempts to rescue the imperiled
cartel. Periodic predictions by some experts of a renewed crisis
within the decade are a TV news staple.
10 the economic educator the energy crisis is a clear example
of why economics must be a part of everyone's education. It is an
instance of how a populace failed to see that government policies
would have unintended but inescapable results that the people
would not knowingly have chosen. National leaders either did not
realize the consequences of their policies or perceived that public
opinion would not permit a better course of action. Indeed, the
policies that ended the crisis were opposed by a substantial num-
ber of people for reasons that made little economic sense. It is
unlikely that the general public understands what created the prob-
lem or how it was solved, because most citizens have no framework
of economic concepts, no intellectual tools for organizing and
interpreting the phenomena of the energy crisis or other economic
events.
10
Economic Literacy and Citizenship 3
Multiply this instance of the energy crisis by one-half of the
front page news stories from the last decade. The product is some
measure of the importance economic educators see in basic under-
standing of economics. Inflation, recession, famine in Africa, "cri-
sis" on the farm and in the "rustbelt," the federal deficit, the military
budget, tax reform, the drug "crisis." All of these and more are
issues that cannot be fully understood without using the intellec-
tual tools of economics.
This chapter examines economic literacy and its relationship
to citizenship. Section one presents the case for economic edu-
cation. It provides a working definition of economic literacy for
effective citizenship and explains what economics is about. Next,
what students must know to be economically literate citizens is
considered. The following section presents an example of the ap-
plication of economics to decision making on an issue. Finally, the
relatior "lip between economics and values is briefly explored.
Citizenship and The Case for Economic Literacy
How economic literacy, the goal of economic education, is
defined has implications for what and how economics should be
taught. There is a growing consensus about at least some aspects
of economic literacy, as demonstrated by comparing statements
from three recent publications.
Symmes and Gilliard define economic literacy: "... a capacity
to apply reasoning processes when making decisions about using
scarce resources. Economic reasoning implies having the capacity
to: define the choice-related problems which confront us; identify
and rank criteria or goals which shape our choices; use knowledge
(facts and concepts) to analyze the probable consequences of
choosing each alternate; and take action based upon the evaluation
of the costs and benefits of various alternate choices."3
Schug provides a statement of the objective of economic edu-
cation which implicitly contains a definition of economic literacy:
"[E]conomic education introduces young people to a highly useful
way of thinking about basic issues and making personal and social
decisions. An understanding and application of fundamental eco-
nomic concepts and principles helps them in this decision-making
process. The goal of economic education, then, is to foster in
students the thinking skills and substantive economic knowledge
necessary to become effective and participating citizens."4
Saunders has defined economic literacy in terms of the fol-
lowing objective of economic education: "... enabling students,
11
4Economic Education for Citizenship
by the time they graduate from high school, to understand enough
economics to make reasoned judgments about economic ques-
tions ... Learning to make reasoned judgments about economic
questions will help students become more effective decision-mak-
ers and more responsible citizens."5
These definitions of economic literacy are quite similar. All
suggest that there is some body of economic content that students
must learn. Furthermore, the students must learn how to apply
this body of knowledge to problems. This means that students
must acquire the capacity to analyze new and unique problems,
not merely interpret or understand the analyses of others. And
students should be able to use their knowledge to make reasoned
decisions or judgments. A discussion of these components of eco-
nomic literacy is presented later.
For the moment readers should focus on the last aspect of
the definition of economic literacy. Each of the documents cited
above, either in the quoted reference or elsewhere, emphasizes
that economic education will lead to more responsible citizenship
and effective participation. It is hard to put too much emphasis
on this last point. This claim comes close to being the raison d'etre
of economic education and forms the core of the traditional ra-
tionale for economic education.
Economic educators typically present cogent reasons why
economic literacy is critical for effective citizenship and partici-
pation in society. Consider that economics is pervasive, touching
many elements of everyone's personal and social lives. As noted
earlier, many (if not most) of the significant social issues confront-
ing our society are fundamentally economic. It is difficult to en-
vision how any citizen could reach sound conclusions on these
issues without being economically literate. Moreover, economics
constitutes a mode of analysis, a way to reason about issues. Thus,
as is shown in more detail later, the ability to apply economic
concepts and use economics as a process of reasoning are impor-
tant to sound social and personal decision making and success in
daily living. In sum, economics is a powerful tool for explaining
the world around us. All students should have an adequate eco-
nomic education, if they are to understand their world and act
effectively within it.
These reasons are sound and significant, and certainly present
a convincing rationale. However, in a world of s,-arce educational
resources, a greater emphasis on economic education must come
at the expense of other thiniTachers might teach and students
Economic Literacy and Citizenship 5
might learn. Thus, one must ask whether the traditional arguments
for economic education form a special case for it relative to other
areas of instruction. This is unclear largely because the arguments
for each discipline are very similar.
Very few educators in any subject, discipline, or educational
program attempt to make the case for their particular area of
interest based on the intrinsic value of the subject to be studied.
There is nearly always a twin appeal for emphasizing a particular
educational program: (1) it ill help students as individuals func-
tion be in society and (2) it will serve some greater social
purpose. oocial studies educators have long attempted to justify
social education on the basis that more effective citizenship will
be produced to the benefit of the citizen and the society. Advocates
of global education claim that the increasingly interdependent
world requires people with a global perspective for their own
good and for the good of the planet. Recent calls for more emphasis
on science and mathematics have been couched in terms of im-
proving both each individual's chances in a rapidly changing labor
market and the economic competitiveness of the United States.
And so it is with literacy programs, drug prevention education,
and so on, including the traditional case for economic education,
about which the introductory paragraphs of this chapter serve.....
an example.
It is appropriate that the justification for these educational
areas should contain a claim that society will benefit from edu-
cation for the individual. Without such claims it would be difficult
to justify universal precollege education at no cost to the recipient.
Precollege education would simply be recognized as a private good
that each individual would purchase if she or he wanted it.
However, because advocates of each discipline make claims
that a priori seem quite reasonable, we are left with the challenge
of allocating scarce educational resources to alternative areas of
education, a classic economic problem. Unfortunately, the ques-
tion of how many resources to devote to each competing area
cannot be answered at present with any precision based on re-
search. The classic response from economic theory to such a ques-
tion is that resources should be allocated in such a way that the
situation cannot be improved by moving resources from one pur-
suit to another. For example, if one were to use some measure of
benefits to society as a yardstick, educators should continue to
shift resources (time on t..sk, spending for materials, etc.) to math-
ematics instruction as long as these yield greater benefits than the
13
6Economic Education for Citizenship
lost benefits resulting from the removal of the resources from
instruction in some other area. This shifting would continue until
some optimal allocation of resources, as measured by the yardstick,
is reached.
Thus, while educators can list the kinds of benefits and costs
of various activities, there is no generally accepted yardstick of
benefit to society and very little of the information needed to
e-termine the relative benefits of shifting educational resources
fru one area to another. There is no study that can actual,
document a claim that shifting resources from, say, career edt.
cation to drug prevention education will result in greater benefits
to either the individual student or society as a whole. Costs and
benefits are simply too hard (and perhaps costly) to measure. This
is equally true in making the case for economic education. Iron-
ically. one of the fundamental generalizations of economics cannot
at present be used to answer an equally fundamental question
about how many resources one should devote to economic edu-
cation, although economic theory does point the way to how such
a decision might be reached.
Nonetheless, it is clear that educational decision makers per-
ceive a special need for economic education. State legislators,
administrators, school board members, teachers, and educational
funders are the decision makers concerning the allocation of edu-
cational resources. They have decided to increase the resources
devoted to economic education' For instance, more states are
requiring a high school course in economics for graduation. The
Developmental Economic Education Program (DEEP) of the Joint
Council on Economic Education has expanded rapidly over the
last few years. More teachers than ever are participating in eco-
nomic education training programs and in the education programs
of organizations, such as Junior Achievement. In this sense, the
educational decision makers must perceive benefits to increased
economic education relative to other endeavors, even though this
judgment might be highly subjective.
In the absence of definitive data, and given the similarity of
the competing claims from other educational programs, on what
basis can these decision makers sustain their judgment? There are
two additional and somewhat speculative arguments that, com-
bined with the traditional rationale, present a special case for
economic literacy vis-a-vis other possible areas of instruction.
First, if the claim that economics instruction does lead to
better social decisions is true (an assertion that like many in edu-
1 4
Economic Literacy and Cit.zenship 7
cation remains to be demonstrated conclusively), then some of
the benefits of those better decisions can be estimated in dollars.
For example, an econometrician might estimate the value to the
economy of having avoided the policies that led to the energy
crisis. If economic literacy would have indeed led to better poli-
cies, such a study would likely show the savings to be in the
hundreds of billions of dollars over the last fifteen years. Other
estimates of clearly erroneous policies could be added to this to
achieve a truly impressive figure, one that other claimants for
scarce edpcational resources might be hard pressed to match.
Second, with the exception of reading and mathematics, no
1/4her area of study can complement and support other areas of
instruction as well as economics. Some educators teach subjects,
for example government or history, without resort to much eco-
nomics. But economic educators are correct to point out that such
teaching is far less beneficial than instruction in the same subjects
that includes economics. To cite a few other examples, career
education generally has explicit economic components; drug pre-
vention education can easily borrow on the decision-making as-
pects of economics; and global education must include economics
in order to be accurate.
In sum, the traditional case for economic literacy, while sound,
is not unique. It is similar to the rationales of advocates of other
instructional areas, programs, or subjects. There is insufficient ev-
idence and consensus on criteria for educators to decide objec-
tively about curriculum priorities. But one can construct arguments
that indicate a special case to be made for economic education
based on its complementing other subjects, and for economic
literacy based on its value to society. That education in economics
is increasing can be viewed as evidence that others charged with
evaluating the costs and benefits are concluding that more re-
sources should be devoted to economics instruction in schools.
How Much Economics?
While there is a convincing case for emphasizing economic
literacy in the curriculum of schools, many questions remain. One
of these is evident in the definitions of economic literacy that were
presented at the beginning of this chapter. For example, °Ile states
that students must understand "enough economics to make rea-
soned judgments."7 How much is enough?
It might advance the discussion of this question to present a
clearer picture of what economics is. A standard textbook deft.
8Economic Education for Citizenship
nition is often something like "the study of the allocation of scarce
resources to alternative and competing ends." Others, recognizing
that economics has developed concepts and propositions that are
very widely applicable, have simply defined the discipline as the
"science of making decisions." A discipline might also be defined
by the questions investigated and the methods used by the prac-
titioners of the discipline. In this sense, economics is whatever
economists do however they do it. No matter the definition used,
it is clear that the tools of the economist are useful whenever
choices are to be made.
In practicing what they do, economists have developed the-
oretical constructs, gerteralizatio1.s, and ways of handling data. The
concepts that form the base of economic content might be seen
in two dimensions, breadth and depth. Breadth is the list of major
concepts students must know to be economically literate. These
concepts have supporting subconcepts that, when mastered, deepen
the understanding of the major concepts. For example, market
structure is a major concept that focuses on the extent of com-
petition present in a market. Supporting subconcepts, such as mo-
nopoly or oligopoly, refer to different kind_ of market structures.
Defining these various kinds of structures requires still other ideas
(sub-subconcepts) such as barriers to entry and homogeneity of
products. Certainly the economists that specialize in studying mar-
ket structt re could delve even more deeply using successive layers
of ever more sophisticated theoretical constructs.
How might this mass of ideas, fact', and methods be organized
for presentation to precollege students? And how much of it do
they need for economic literacy? In the mid 1970s, the Joint Coun-
cil on Economic Education performed the valuable service of com-
missioning several economists to create a guiding framework for
economic educators. The first edition of A Framework for Teach-
ing the Basic Concepts conceived the discipline as composed of
four major parts: (1) twenty-four major economic concepts or
concept clusters; (2) information about the major institutions in
an economy; (3) concepts for measuring economic phenomena;
and (4) concepts to evaluate outcomes of economic decisions."
It is especially important to recognize that the authors attempted
to limit their document to what they viewed as the essentials for
basic economic literacy.
Time will not be taken here to examine in detail the content
of this pioneering document. Both editions (the second makes
changes, mostly improvements on the original) are recommended.
16
Economic Literacy and Citizenship 9
Readers should note that the document unfortunately does not
set forth generalizations drawn from research and the application
of concepts to the real world. (The subject of economic gener-
alizations is examined in more detail in Chapter II, which treats
economics in the curriculum.)
Of particular interest are concepts identified in the Frame-
work. The bulk of economics instruction centers on concepts, and
it is concepts that are most readily transportable into other con-
texts or curriculum areas. There is broad general agreement among
economic educators on the present Framework's response to the
question of depth and breadth. A number of economic educators
from around the country were asked for their views before the
new edition was printed. Thus, the present Framework stands as
a readily accessible; generally accepted guide to the essential com-
ponents of economic literacy.'
Applying Economics to Economic Issues
The ability to use economics to analyze economic problems
is also an essential step in reaching decisions. A specific example
might be helpful. The next (final?) chapter of the story of the
energy cri is presented as an illustration. First, a brief explanation
of the concepts used in this analysis is presented.
In introductory economics, students are taught that prices
perform three essential functions: they ration available products
and services among potential buyers, they create incentives, and
they transmit information. Because all economic goods are scarce,
there must be some way to decide who gets a particular item, and
who does not. Prices ration scarce items among potential buyers
by the expedients of willingness and ability to pay the market
price. The market price (or market clearing price, or equilibrium
price) is especially significant. It is that prie° at which the quantity
buyers are willing and able to purchase equals the quantity sellers
are willing to offer. Note that for any product or service there is
some price at which the market will clear. There will be neither
shortages nor surpluses.
As condition., change (t'lat is the demand for or the supply
of an item in a market changes), the market price rises or falls to
exclude or include buyers or change the amount they purchase.
A change in the price provides an economic incentive to partic-
ipants to alter their behavior. For example, increasing relative
prices for labor lead businesses to use more machines. Failure to
17
10 Economic Education for Citizenship
do so may price oneself out of the market compared to one's
competitors. Changing relative prices transmit information
throughout an economic system signalling the need for greater
resources here and less output there.
As OPEC reduced the amount of oil available on world markets
(a decrease in the supply), oil prices on world markets rose. But
because of United States government price controls on energy,
prices faced by domestic producers and consumers were not per-
mitted to rise as rapidly and, therefore, could not perform their
normal functions. The signal of a rising price was absent. Buyers
continued to try to purchase about as much gasoline as before,
but there was less available at controlled prices. Price could not
be used to ration the available supply at the controlled price, so
other methods, such as waiting in line and limiting purchases, were
used. Furthermore, there was no signal to domestic suppliers to
produce more. The resulting shortage was interpreted by many as
the imminent end to abundant oil and natural gas.
I recall an interview with a man waiting in a line at a gas
station that was broadcast on national television. This fellow had
a different view. He said essentially: "Just you wait. When gas prices
get high enough there will be plenty of gas." He believed he was
making a stinging indictment of the oil companies when he was
actually pointing to a fundamental economic idea. Changing prices
can eliminate shortages, if they are permitted to work.
Perhaps even worse, the price controls and some related pol-
icies, including one that taxed domestic production of oil while
subsidizing imports, strengthened OPEC's hand. As early as 1974,
economists were predicting that OPEC, like many cartels before
it, would collapse. Cartels are unstable because total output must
be restricted in order to maintain a higher price. That means each
cartel member must accept a production ceiling that is generally
less than its potential output. Any individual cartel member could
benefit by cutting price just a bit and selling all that could be
produced. Thus, there is tremendous pressure to cheat. By de-
stroying the incentives to produce and conserve, energy policies
made it easier for the cartel to forestall the inevitable cheating.
Many economists argued that the removal of price controls
was the critical policy to be undertaken. This action was vigorously
opposed by many. Some did not believe that higher prices would
result in conservation. (In the jargon of economics, demand was
price inelastic, meaning that the quantity people demanded would
not be affected much by price.) Others, fearing that the world was
Economic Literacy and Citizenship 11
simply running out of oil and gas, thought that the higher prices
would enrich the oil companies while failing to change very much
the amount produced. In other words, supply was price inelastic
as well. Some believed OPEC was less an economically motivated
organization than a political one. Thus, it was believed to manip-
ulate oil production to achieve political ends.
However, price controls were eliminated eventually. The re-
sults seemed like magic. Higher prices rationed available supplies
among customers, created incentives to conserve and produce,
and signalled appropriate values for energy throughout the net-
work of markets. Both supply and demand proved to be much
more elastic over longer time periods than critics of decontrol
had thought. For instance, the shift to smaller, more fuel-efficient
cars took some time to develop, but did reduce demand signifi-
cantly. Natural gas suddenly became so abundant that distribution
companies were able to begin adding new customers. In addition,
greater conservation and non-OPEC production put the cartel un-
der pressure. The cheating started. World oil prices dropped pre-
cipitously. Gasoline prices fell to levels that were hardly thought
possible.Economic analysis, such as the foregoing, often has four dis-
tinct stages, assuming that one already understands the economic
concepts to be used First, select the appropriate concepts from
the available set. Second, use the concepts to construct a hypoth-
esis of what happened (or what would happen). Third, examine
the available evidence to test the hypothesis. Fourth, determine
the consequences of what happened (or what would happen).
The economic concepts used in the foregoing explanation are
listed below.
market rationing price controls
supply market shortage
demand cartel elasticity
price changes in supply
incentives changes in demand
In addition, the narrative could have been replaced or supple-
mented with standard market model graphs ("supply and demand
curves ") which would have required the ability to interpret graphs.
Some might feel the list is a bit forbidding. It certainly helps
to explain why many did not understand the energy crisis. From
the point of view of the economic educator, the list is standard
19
12 Economic Education for Citizenship
fare. There is nothing arcane about these concepts. They belong
in every citizen's mental tool kit.
These concepts were used to construct a hypothesis of what
happened. For example, by using supply, demand, market price,
changes in supply (decrease in supply), and price controls, one is
able to arrive at the conclusion that there will be an economic
shortage, meaning a greater quantity demanded than quantity sup-
plied at the controlled price. Or, one can arrive at the hypothesis
that OPEC is deliberately withholding supply to boost price, not
to punish the West for its pro-Israel policies.
Next, evidence was sought to confirm or disconfirm the hy-
potheses. Non-price rationing (waiting in lines, closing gas stations
earlier) is clear evidence that the controlled price is below the
market price. Cheating is evidence that members of OPEC are
indeed behaving as economic rather than political actors.
Finally, one can predict consequences of actions or proposed
actions. For example, price elasticity of supply and demand were
used to present alternative views of the probable result of price
decontrol. Predictions about the consequences of decontrol on
OPEC's behavior were also made. Predicting consequences is es-
pecially important in reaching a decision or making a reasoned
judgment. For in considering whether a present policy is better
than some alternative, it often comes down to a comparison of
the consequences of the two policies.
Reaching Decisions: Economics and Values
The comments made about the energy policies of the United
States during the 1970s have been explicitly critical. That is due
to my evaluation of the consequences of those policies and the
alternative of price decontrol using criteria that have not yet been
made explicit. To explicitly state one's criteria of judgment, and
to measure the consequences of the alternatives against those
criteria, are the final links in the chain of knowledge and skills
necessary for economic literacy for effective citizenship as defined
by the authorities cited earlier.
This approach is founded on the notion that economics can
be used to analyze problems, but cannot generate ready-made
conclusions to economic issues. It derives from the separation of
"positive" and "normative" economics where positive economics
refers to the scientific aspects of economics, the building and
testing of empirical propositions. Normative economics involves
reaching judgments on value-laden issues.
20
Economic Literacy and Citizenship 13
To return to the energy crisis, some of my criteria of judgment
are the following: promote economic growth in the United States
and abroad; promote stable prices in the United States and abroad;
promote an efficient allocation of resources; and promote equity
in the international distribution of income. Without reproducing
the economic analysis here, I believe that such an analysis gen-
erates predicted consequences for a policy of domestic decontrol
of energy prices, which exceeds the performance of the price
control policy on all of these criteria. If this analysis is correct,
then one who values these criteria is compelled to support the
policy of decontrol. The analysis of the consequences using eco-
nomics is positive economics. Stating criteria and reaching a con-
clusion based on how well the alternatives meet the criteria is
normative economics.
This means that two people (perhaps economists) could reach
precisely the same conclusions about the predicted outcome of
alternative policies, but disagree about which policy should be
followed. Consider a different set of criteria: promote growth in
Saudi Arabia; promote the military strength of regimes that support
the Palestinian cause; promote the stability of the Saudi monarchy:
maintain low prices for current users of natural gas. With these
criteria, the opposite conclusion must be reached, since controls
on prices promote these objectives far better than decontrol.
It is simply the case that I value the first set of criteria more
than the second. It is for the moral philosophers, not the econo-
mists, to justify one of these two sets of criteria as the better set.
Possibly one could believe that some outcomes from each set
are desirable. Tradeoffs among desirable outcomes are a fact of
life. One simply must decide if gaining a bit more stability in the
Saudi regime is worth giving up some price stability in the United
States and abroad. That all desirable goals cannot be pursued si-
multaneonsly, that what promotes one cherished goal may do so
at the expense of some other sought after outcome, is one of the
great lessons of economics and a key feature of economic literacy.
This example also illustrates that economic education for ef-
fective citizenship requires more than instruction in economic
concepts. It necessitates helping students to apply those concepts
and reach reasoned conclusions. Students must be able to generate
alternative policies and evaluate consequences. Because of the
critical nature of values in public economic issues and personal
economic issues, the example also shows why one cannot simply
14 Economic Education for Citizenship
rely on expert opinion. In short, students must be able to imple-
ment both positive and normative economics.
This approach to values and economic education has broad
support among economists and economic educators, but it has its
critics. For example, Romanish attacked widely-used textbooks in
economics partly because of the emphasis on teaching positive
concepts.'" Scholars writing from the critical theory perspective
dispute the entire positivistic tradition. The critical theory pro-
ponents also argue that there is no such thing as a value-free part
of economics. Furthermore, there are economists arguing for the
need to rethink and perhaps redefine the discipline, although their
arguments have not yet (and might never) substantially changed
the traditional discipline nor influenced economic education."
Another criticism is lodged by those who argue that instruc-
tion for economic literacy must include certain "correct" conclu-
sions. Clearly, these judgments contain implicit value positions,
but the advocates of this approach are quite certain of the su-
premacy of the values inherent in the conclusions. By teaching
the judgments directly, the students are saved the time and trouble
of arriving at them on their own. And, there is less chance that
they will erroneously arrive at the wrong .;.swers. Thus, some
would have economic educators teach students that free enter-
prise is good, or that capitalism is bad.
Such conclusions are very sweeping. There are others that
are more comfortable in having students learn that certain specific
policies are bad or good. An example of this might be: It is well
documented in economics that minimum wages create unem-
ployment, especially among the disadvantaged youth. Since nearly
everyone agrees that these outcomes are bad, minimum wages
should be abolished. Thus, it is perfectly acceptable to simply teach
students that minimum wages are bad.
This sketches some of the controversy about economics and
values. The arguments are really not exclusive to economic edu-
cation. Critical theory advocates lodge similar objections to other
curricular areas. Christian fundamentalists concern themselves with
values in all aspects of schooling. (The questions raised about
values and economics are discussed throughout this volume, es-
pecially in the section on economics in the curriculum.)
Summary
This chapter considers the case for economic education, es-
pecially as it relates to promoting citizenship. It is argued that the
22
Economic Literacy and Citizenship 15
data are insufficient to compare properly the competing claims
for educational resources. However, there are arguments and ev-
idence that a special case for economic education can be made.
The chapter also examines what is meant by economic lit-
eracy, focusing on the knowledge and skills that many authorities
believe are necessary. It bears repeating that economic education
must focus on analysis and reaching reasoned conclusions. This
has important implications for both curriculum design and teach-
ing. Finally, the chapter presents the treatment of values and de-
cision making as advocated by the majority of economists and
economic educators. Some of the controversy about this area is
outlined in broad terms.
Succeeding chapters examine economics in the curriculum,
economics instruction, and materials in economics. As these sub-
jects are considered, readers should keep in mind the focus on
economics for citizenship and decision making presented in this
chapter.
Notes
' Kenneth Weaver, "Our Energy Predicament," Energy: Facing Up to the
Problem, Getting Down to Solutions (Washington D.C: National Geographic
Society, 1981), 4, 16.17.
2 Mary Jo and Harry Leavitt, "The Energy Crisis: An Introduction Learning
Activity Package" (Seattle, WA: Unigraph, 1977).
S. Stowell Symmes and June V. Gilliard, "Economic Literacy What Is It?"
in Economic Education: Links to the Social Studies edited by S. Stowell Symmes
(Washington D.C.: National C )until for the Social Studies, 1981), 5.
'Mark C. Schug, "Introduction," in Economics in the School Curriculum,
K12, edited by Mark C. Schug (Washington D.C.: Joint Council on Economic
ducation and National Education Association, 198i), 6.
s Phillip Saunders, G.L. Bach, James D. Calderwood, and W. Lee Hansen, A
Framework for Teaching the Basic Concepts (New York: Joint Council on Eco-
nomic Education, 1984), 1.
6Specific evidence on the increased resources devoted to economic edu-
cation is presented in several places in this monograph. For instance, see Chapter
II for evidence on DEEP and the increase in state mandates.
'Saunders, Bach, Calderwood, and Hansen, A Framework for Teaching the
Basic Concepts, 1.
"W. Lee Hansen, G.L. Bach, James D. Calderwood, and Phillip Saunders, A
Framework for Teaching the Basic Concepts (New York: Joint Council on Eco-
nomic Education, 1977), 8-9.
While the Framework represents a consensus, there is still much research
that should be done to demonstrate that these are the essential concepts, and
not some others, or that there is sufficient depth to the concepts as presented.
Also, see footnote 11.
23
16 Economic Education for Citizenship
'"Bruce A. Romanish, "Modern Secondary Economics Textbooks and Ide-
ological Bias," Theory and Research in Social Education 11 (Spring 1983). 1-
24. " The Spring, 1987 issue of the Journal of Economic Education (Vol 18,
no. 2) is largely devoted to the proceedings of a conference dealing explicitly
with redefining the scope of economics and the implications of such a redefinition
for economic education. Many interesting points were raised, but it remains
unclear how much force and acceptance the position of the critics of the status
quo will have.
2,1
CHAPTER IT
Economics in the Curriculum
This chapter concentrates on the curriculum implications of
ecoaomic education for effective citizenship, albeit with an oc-
casional reference to teaching and materials since the three are
inextricably linked. Curriculum is examined first because in theory
it drives both instruction and the selection and use of materials.
However, educators know that this theoretical role of the curric-
ulum is often honored in the breach. The research evidence shows
that the curriculum is frequently whatever an individual teacher
decides to teach or whatever is in the textbook. For instance,
research on time devoted to different subjects by teachers in the
same school district and grade level using the same curriculum
shows wide variations from teacher to teacher.' Nonetheless, if
educators are to deliver instruction according to some plan other
than one based on the professional judgments of individual teach-
ers and the content of textbooks, the curriculum will likely be the
organizing force behind that plan.
This chapter does not dwell on the general problems of cur-
riculum development. These are legion and have been written
about extensively by educators who specialize in curriculum. It
is sufficient to note that economic education is not immune to
these problems. To cite just one example, McCutcheon notes:
"Many curriculum scholars call for teachers to be involved in
curriculum reform, but few teachers report they are vitally inter-
ested in it."2 This pose problems since curriculum development
efforts in economics, such as the Developmental Economic Edu-
cation Program (DEEP) of the Joint Council on Economic Edu-
cation, often rely heavily on teachers as participants in curriculum
change.In this chapter, the focus is on curriculum concerns that are
more specific to economic education for citizenship. First, atten-
tion centers on infusing economics into the curriculum, kinder-
garten through twelfth grade. Of special interest is assessing the
strengths and weaknesses of infusion, and DEEP as a model edu-
il r-4.,
18 Economic Education for Citizenship
cators can follow in infusing economics throughout the school
curriculum. Alternative infusion approaches are also discussed.
The following section considers what a model economics curric-
ulum might look like. Next, the curriculum of the high school
economics course is examined. Another section concentrates on
one area of economics education that is too often overlooked
the lack of emphasis on skills in handling quantitative data. Finally,
consideration is given to controversial economic issues and values.
Economics, K-12
Economics is often thought of as a distinct subject largely
taught in a discrete course at the high school level. However, it
is also being taught as a part of various subjects in the curriculum
at different grade levels. This section focuses on the infusion of
economics throughout the curriculum, beginning with an exam-
ination of current patterns of infusion. Next, strengths and weak-
nesses of integrating economics K-12 and issues concerning models
of economics curricular infusion are considered.
The available evidence shows that much of what students
learn about economics comes in instruction in courses that are
not primarily economics. An important national survey of second-
ary teachers (grades 6-12) found that 47% of those surveyed who
said they were teaching economics were infusing economics in-
struction as part of another subject. Another 25% said they were
both infusing economics and teaching it as a separate subject.
Junior high school teachers were more likely to follow an infusion
approach. Seventy-five percent reported teaching economics as
part of another subject. The courses most often reported as the
"host" courses were not surprising: U.S. history, 27%; U.S. gov-
ernment, 20%; consumer economics/education, 18%; social stud-
ies, 16%; world history, 11%; and civics, 10 %.4 Even in states that
require instruction in economics, infusion is a popular approach.
Brennan found that of 24 states that have an economics (or "free
enterprise") requirement, 16 implement it, at least in part, by
infusion.4
While there are no comparable data for the elementary grades,
it is reasonable to assume that virtually all of the instruction in
economics is integrated into the broader social studies program.
Discrete economics courses are found almost exclusively at the
secondary level. Furthermore, elementary social studies textbooks
tend to emphasize the expanding horizons curricular pattern where
26
Economics in the Curriculum 19
the organizing force is the growing geographic horizon of the
students. Thus, students begin in the primary grades by studying
the family, the school, the community, and later, the state, the
region, the nation, and the world. Economic concepts typically
play only a supporting role in this scheme.
There are undoubtedly exceptions to this pattern. Some el-
ementary teachers might be teaching discrete units on economics.
Others might be using Marilyn Kourilsky's highly regarded Mini-
Society program.' But most teachers follow the prescribed text.
In sum, it is safe to say that most teaching of economics at
both elementary and secondary levels is integrated into some other
course. However, this does not mean that infusion is the best or
only approach. It remains to be demonstrated that economics
ought to be taught to kindergarteners, or in any curricular area
beyond the economics course. In other words, if economic literacy
is the concern, why not simply require all students to take an
economics course in high school and let it go at that?
There is no definitive answer to this question for the same
reasons given in the first chapter. For instance, it has been shown,
by Marilyn Kourilsky and others, that children as young as the
primary grades can learn a great deal of economics content.6 How-
ever, there is no evidence that students who have been taught
economics throughout their careers learn economics in high school
or college better than anyone else. Nor has it been demonstrated
that infusing economics throughout the curriculum pro, aces bet-
ter citirms or individuals better prepared for life in an economic
world. In the absence of such data there can be no definitive
assessment of the relative costs and benefits of alternative ap-
proaches.
Nonetheless, one can cite theoretical strengths and weak-
nesses of the infusion approach. First and foremost among the
strengths is the enriching effect of economics on other subjects,
such as U.S. history. Every era of historical development has im-
portant economic aspects that are best understood from the or-
ganized framework that economics provides. For instance, the role
of unions can be seen as an attempt to oppose the monopsony
(one buyer) in employment with a countervailing monopoly. The
industrial revolution can be understood better using concepts such
as productivity and capital investment. In fact, it has been shown
that failure to include economics in such courses can result in
serious mis-teaching of historical events.'
07
20 Economic Education for Citizenship
Infusion of economics into courses such as U.S. history and
government can strengthen the emphasis on citizenship devel-
opment that is normally regarded as the reason for teaching these
sill- ,P,-ts in the first place. Consider the various functions of the
fed I government in regulating the economy. To the extent they
are .seated in government classes at all, the emphasis is likely to
be on things such as the functions of parts of the executive branch.
Education for citizenship would be improved by analyzing the
economic issues agencies confront or evaluating government per-
formance in macroeconomic policy, for example. This can only
be done by importing economics into the government class and
would require students to use both positive and normative eco-
nomics.Moreover, infusion multiplies the number of places where
economics can be taught and the number of teachers involved. As
Brenneke and Soper have noted: "Another benefit of the infusion
approach is that all or most teachers in a school are potential
teachers of economics.... A good infusion program may yield very
high dividends, particularly in an elementary school setting, by
focusing the attention of the entire faculty on economics as a
significant curriculum component."8
There are potential weaknesses as well. Unless the economics
curriculum is carefully crafted and teachers have the knowledge
and materials to implement their respective portions of the cur-
riculum, students are not likely to receive adequate instru Lion in
economics. Research shows that there are problems in each of
these areas. Discussion of teacher knowledge and materials is de-
ferred to concentrate here on the curriculum.
There is an essential body of content necessary for economic
literacy. A program of economics instruction based on infusion
must ensure that the essential content is presented to all students.
This also implies that content should build from one grade level
or course to the next in a coordinated way. The available evidence
shows that this is probably not happening. For example, Armento's
examination of economics curriculum guides from schools with
stronger eco.-,omics programs concluded: "Concepts are dealt with
at the introductory, definitional level whether the guide is in-
tended for the ninth or the telfth grade. If this is the case, there
must be an assumption by curriculum builders that prior instruc-
tion in economic education has not occurred."9 The uncertainty
of what students learn at different grade levels is compounded at
2i
Economics in the Curriculum 21
the high school level where students divide into different "tracks"
and take different elective courses.
Perhaps even worse, many teachers apparently do not realize
the opportunities to infuse economics into their present courses.
Recall the research that shows nearly half of the secondary teachers
who teach economics infuse it into Ither courses, mostly in the
social studies. The same survey asked teachers what subjects they
teach that are "unrelated to economics." Fifty-one percent listed
other subjects including many of the same subjects that were
the "host" courses for the infusion of economics by other teach-
ers!'° Plainly, this implies that while some social studies teachers
recognize the relationship of economics to history, government,
and other social studies courses, many other teachers do not. This
also suggests that using the infusion curriculum approach with
these teachers might be extremely difficult.
The combination of these problems shows up as important
gaps in student understanding of certain concepts. Walstad and
Watts have cited research identifying specific areas of weakness.
Among these are the entire areas of macroeconomics and public
policy and certain specific concepts such as opportunity cost."
Even if all the concepts are somehow presented in places
where every student will have the opportunity to learn them, the
problem of synthesizing the conceptual learning into an integrated
whole remains. Walstad and Watts have noted that students who
learn economics under the infusion approach are not likely to
"acquire an overview of how individual concepts fit together in a
meaningful whole."12 This has serious implications for economic
education for citizenship given its focus on reasoned decisions on
social problems and the value-laden nature of economic issues.
Economic analysis of problems frequently requires the abilities to
realize the implications of actions in one arena on results in an-
other, and to evaluate the consequences of alternative actions.
Moreover, the evidence from the recent national norming of the
revised Test of Economic Literacy (TEL) "strongly suggests that
students who receive their economics education through infusion
in the social studies courses without a specific economics com-
ponent learn significantly less economics than do students who
take a separate course in the subject."'3
To sum up, there are unique benefits of an infusion approach
to the teaching of economics for citizenship, but there are also
some serious weaknesses. However, the weaknesses are not nec-
essarily inherent. Presumably, good planning and articulation across
o
22 Economic Education for Citizenship
subjects and grade levels, sufficient teacher training, and quality
instructional materials could make the infusion approach the pre-
ferred option. As it happens, there is a model program that attempts
to implement each of these elements the Developmental Eco-
nomic Education Program (DEEP) from the Joint Council on Eco-
nomic Education. This program is examined before turning
attention to other options, including alternative infusion ap-
proaches and a required high school economics course.
DEEP: An Infusion Model
DEEP is a significant program with a long history. Having
started in 20 school districts in 1965, DEEP now enrolls more
than 1375 school districts with some 15 million students. It is
more appropriately thought of as a process rather than a specific
program. Each individual school district develops its own plan of
economics instruction that includes three major components: cur-
riculum development, teacher training, and improvement of ma-
terials. Each DEEP district presumably has at its disposal the services
of one of 50 state councils on economic education and some 270
centers for economic education. This support and advocacy net-
work puts DEEP in sharp contrast to many other social studies
education projects, notably the curriculum materials developed
and promoted as part of the "new social studies" in the 1960s and
early 1970s.
The evidence on the effectiveness of DEEP is generally pos-
itive, but might not reflect the full value of the program. A summary
of research on DEEP from the Joint Council on Economic Edu-
cation shows that students in DEEP districts learn significantly
more economics than students from districts that do not partici-
pate in the program However, even studies that show the success
of the program point out that there are serious research problems
in attempting to quantify specifically the value of the program. 14
For example, some studies measure the effect of the participation
of a school district in DEEP on student economic knowledge. These
studies often include a binary variable for participation in DEEP
as part of a regression equation that contains a number of variables
designed to explain the various influences on student test scores.
One major difficulty with such studies is that the binary variable
simply does not truly measure the effect of a fully implemented
DEEP. Some school districts are "paper DEEP districts," meaning
that they are officially listed as participating, but really are not.
30
Economics in the Curriculum 23
Other districts are in the very early stages of DEEP, but are treated
as if the program were fully implemented. The inclusion of these
districts has the effect of understating the value of DEEP.
Moreover, there are some ether studies that do not clearly
show benefits of DEEP. For instance, Watts conducted an extensive
study of the relationship of DEEP to student understanding of
economics in Indiana. He found that "the DEEP binary (variable)
was not generally positive and significant, as it has been in earlier
studies."15 Here too, there are problems of interpretation of the
research results. Watts points out that many of the variables en-
tered into his models capture some of the effects of participation
in DEEP, thus statistically draining explanatory power away from
the DEEP variable. For example, if the regression model includes
some measure of teacher understanding (a component of every
DEEP), some of the effects of DEEP will be captured by this var-
iable, making the coefficient for the binary DEEP variable smaller
and perhaps statistically insignificant.
More research data generated through the national norming
of the Test of Economic Literacy are on the way. These data might
further clarify the value of DEEP. For now the weight of the evi-
dence shows that DEEP does result in more economics learning.
Additional research that more carefully divides DEEP districts into
classes will also permit better estimates of the effects of this pro-
gram.Recent research by Brenneke and Soper on the development
of DEEP in one school district does point out some of the problems
that are encountered in implementing it and some recommen-
dations.'6 They found that teacher training is crucial and must be
widespread. Although 28% of the K-8 teachers in this district had
formal economics instruction as part of the program, that was not
sufficient. Second, teachers needed specific exposure to economics
teaching materials, and especially the economics content of their
textbooks. The teachers relied heavily on textbooks, but were
unable to use the economics in their texts without significant help
in identifying the economic content. Third, teachers must have
strong incentives to include economics instructions, especially the
inclusion of economics items as part of the district's testing pro-
gram.These caveats emerged from a study of a school district with
a carefully implemented DEEP and a strong locally developed eco-
nomics curriculum. Does membership in DEEP usually result in a
stronger economics curriculum? Recall that DEEP rel'es on teach-
31
24 Economic Education for Citizenship
ers to do much of the curriculum design in each district. It is not
clear that teachers have the economic knowledge to build sound
economics curricula. I suspect that most do not. Furthermore, as
pointed out earlier, research evidence shows that teachers are not
very interested in building curriculum. The only national research
on the effect of DEEP on the curriculum shows very weak and
inconsistent results." Furthermore, a later section on a model
economics curriculum will provide some additional reasons to
believe that curriculum development might be the weakest part
of DEEP. In sum, it cannot at present be concluded that DEEP
districts have stronger economics curricula than non-DEEP schools.
A potentially attractive alternative to integrating economics
in bits and pieces throughout the K-12 curriculum is to infuse it
into other courses in discrete, intact units of instruction. This
approach can avoid some of the problems of the infusion approach
discussed earlier. For instance, discrete units, carefully crafted,
might permit easier articulation from subject to subject and grade
level to grade level, thereby providing greater assurance that all
students will receive adequate economics instruction. Discrete
units could also mitigate somewhat the problem of synthesizing
the discipline into a more integrated whole. James E. Davis, in a
report on teaching economics to young adolescents sponsored by
the Foundation for Teaching Economics (FTE), points out that
such units could most easily be moved into the social studies
courses in grades six through nine where the traditional social
studies curriculum is less settled.'"
At the secondary level, integration of discrete economics units
does not even require a close link to the host course. Consider,
as an example, Junior Achievement's "Project Business." This pop-
ular, nationally distributed program uses volunteer business con-
sultants to teach eighth-and ninth-grade students specified aspects
of basic economics and business. Typically one class period per
week over roughly ten weeks is devoted to Project Business, often
in the eighth-grade U.S. history course. In the case of Project Busi-
ness, a consultant's guide is used to direct the content of the
program, although consultants are free to skip sections or substi-
tute other material. Thus, as in the case of more general infusion
approaches such as DEEP, there remains the risk of missing ele-
ments of economics and economic reasoning critical to effective
citizenship.
One can conclude that infusion by discrete units still requires
the units to be part of carefully planned economics curriculum.
Economics in the Curriculum 25
The difficulties of producing such curricula locally are examined
in the next section, which discusses aspects of a national model
curriculum in economics.
A Model Economics Curriculum
The development of a model economics curriculum is a for-
midable task, far beyond the scope of this section. Furthermore,
for many teachers the textbook is the curriculum, a subject that
is developed more fully in Chapter IV, on economics materials.
Also, only the written curriculum is considered .ere, despite much
that has been written on the "hidden" curriculum and curriculum
as a process in the classroom. Even given these limitations, it is
still useful to have in mind what a model economics curriculum
might look like. This section lists the criteria and elements that I
believe curriculum developers in economics should consider.
However, other curriculum issues, such as the role of values and
the validity of economic content, are deferred to a later section.
Given the definition of economic literacy presented in Chap-
ter I, the first and most basic pragmatic decision for economics
curriculum writers is to determine what specific terminal objec-
tives of economic understanding the curriculum is to achieve. A
critical choice must be made between a curriculum based on
attaining and applying concepts and one based on broader objec-
tives, such aE understanding and using generalizations. (Another
alternative, using goals as terminal objectives, is discussed later in
this section.) I believe the former is used more often, but that the
latter is preferable.
Before the argument on this issue is presented, the distinction
between the two types of curricula should be clarified. The con-
cept-based curriculum emphasizes the teaching and learning of
discrete concepts, such as scarcity or opportunity cost. Typically,
a well-organized curriculum will "introduce" or "define" a concept
at a particular grade level, "develop" the concept later, and, still
later, "reinforce" the concept. In some cases the curriculum may
even suggest places where a concept is to be "applied."
A curriculum based on terminal objectives, such as general-
izations (or goals), uses concepts as 'ouilding blocks to understand-
ing and organizing knowledge at a higher level of generality (hence
"generalizations"). "Increasing demand usually results in higher
prices and a greater quantity supplied" is a generalization. It is
founded on many concepts including markets, supply, demand,
33
26 Economic Education for Citizenship
and so on. However, the concepts are combined to produce a
general statement, a generalization.
There are virtues to the concept-based approach. In some
ways it seems easier to establish. The concepts are already iden-
tified, for example in the JCEE Framework mentioned in Chapter
I. Many economics materials are organized on the basis of concepts.
Also, there is less work to do than in the generalization-based
approach. After all, generalizations (or goals) require curriculum
developers to specify the terminal generalizations and then work
backwards to specify which concepts are critical to understanding
those generalizations and where to place those concepts.
But it seems to me that the curricula based on terminal ob-
jectives, such as the generalization-based curriculum, have one
huge, overriding advantage. It forces curriculum writers to organ-
ize economic knowledge for students. This means that students
should have a greater chance to see how the interrelated concepts
of economics fit together. How else can economic educators hope
that students will see that markets allocate resources or that ex-
cessive monetary growth leads to inflation? Such understandings
are based on learning concepts, but cannot be reached by a cur-
riculum that is concept-centered, for these understandings require
the simultaneous (or successive) application of several concepts.
Thus, the previously discussed criticism that the infusion approach
fails to provide students with an integrated view of economics
reflects the importance of the generalization-based curriculum.
Moreover, this virtue of the generalization-based curriculum
is critical to economic education for citizenship. As the example
of the energy crisis in Chapter I demonstrates, citizens cannot use
isolated concepts to understand complex economic events. Gen-
eralizations, such as "prices controlled below the market clearing
price, result in shortages," are far more useful in analyzing eco-
nomic issues.
This advantage is critical when effective citizenship is the
object of economic education. As the example of the energy crisis
in Chapter I shows, citizens must use generalizations rather than
isolated concepts to understand and analyze complex social issues.
It follows that an economics curriculum based on generalizations
is superior if effective citizenship is the goal.
Whether the economics curriculum is based on concepts or
generalizations, there are several basic criteria any model curric-
ulum must meet: appropriateness for grade level, completeness,
34
Economics in the Cumculum 27
accuracy, clarity, and adaptability. These are so obvious that they
will require only a little elaboration.
Any model curriculum has to provide an economics scope
and sequence that specifies what economics is to be taught where.
In so doing it must take account of the abilities of the learners.
This is easy to say and hard to do. It involves careful study of
learning theory and research. Whatever content is specified, it must
be thorough and accurate. As noted above, the research calls into
question many of the present economics curricula on both counts.
Because many teachers have little formal training in economics,
Iny model curriculum must be extraordinarily clear. Finally, the
model must be both specific, but adaptable to a wide variety of
curricular patterns, especially at the secondary level.
These are heavy demands to place on any curriculum writers.
But they serve to illustrate how important a national model can
be, and why the curriculum component of DEEP might be its
weakest link. The first four of the five criteria mentioned above
apply equally to a locally developed curriculum. To ask a group
of teachers and a center director (who might be an economist
with no formal training in writing curriculum) to produce such a
curriculum separately in each DEEP district is expecting a lot,
probably too much. Hence, there is a need for a national model.
One such model has recently been developed by a group led
by Beverly Armento.'9 This K-12 economic education curriculum
is especially noteworthy for several reasons. First, it is an example
of an alternative approach that organizes the curriculum around
25 goals representing terminal objectives that students are to
achieve. As is the case with the generalization-based curriculum,
the goals organize concepts into coherent, related bundles. Indeed,
some of the goal statements are operationalized generalizations,
that is they state what the students are to be able to do with a
particular generalization. Second, the same logical organization of
economics appears in the objectives for each goal. Each goal is
subdivided into developmentally-appropriate objectives which
contain the cognitive components necessary to meet the goal.
Third, ill this model careful attention has been devoted to learning
theory and its application to development of a K-12 curriculum.
The concepts and student activities contained in each objective
are placed at suggested grade levels that .re developmentally ap-
propriate.
There are other models that are available or will be completed
in the near future. The JCEE is developing another curriculum at
35
28 Economic Education for Citizenship
present, as is the Ohio Council on Economic Education. Davis, in
the FTE report, presents a model for economics curricula in middle
schools that includes eight suggested generalizations as a guide to
the selection of specific curricular content.2" With the advent of
these models, one can hope for stronger local curricula and re-
search based on the success of the curricula in improving eco-
nomic education and conformance with learning theory.
The High School Economics Course
As noted earlier, most students receive the larger part of their
economics instruction in courses other than the discrete econom-
ics class. There is, however, a trend toward stronger state mandates
regarding the high school economics course. A study of state eco-
nomics mandates by Brennan and Banaszak in 1981 showed seven
states with a required economics or "free enterprise" course. How-
ever, in the 1985-6 update, this had increased to 15 states.21 Other
states have taken different steps to strengthen the economics course.
For example, Ohio now requires all high schools to offer and
operate a semester-long principles of economics course, though
students are not required to take it. Thus, the curriculum of the
high school economics course deserves to be examined more
closely.John Morton, a director of a center for economic education
and also an economics teacher in a high school, has written an
excellent article on the economics course that contains sound
practical advice based on his classroom experiences and data from
his students' tests. He suggests that the high school course contain
four elements:
1. Teach the basic principles of economics.
2. Reinforce the basic principles with various activities.
3. Have students apply economic logic to a wide variety of
subjects.
4. Have students apply economic reasoning to hypothetical
decisions they will make as consumers, workers, and cit-
izens."
There are three points about these suggestions that are es-
pecially noteworthy for economics teachers. First, Morton suggests
principles of economics for all students, even those of lower ability
levels.24 This is significant partly because many teachers of eco-
nomics prefer to emphasize "personal" or "practical" economics.
36
Economics in the Curriculum 29
In their view principles of economics means theory that is dry
and difficult. It is presumed to be easier for students to understand
and more relevant to their needs to focus on financing a car or
making a personal budget. Neither of these examples is really
economics, nor do they contribute to economic education for
citizenship as defined in Chapter I. Morton's data show that stu-
dents of all ability levels can handle the supposedly more difficult
content based on principles.
Second, economics teaching and learning can be active and
participatory by using "activities" as a dominant mode of instruc-
tion. This requires economics teachers to break away from exclu-
sive use of textbook treatments. More on this subject will be
presented in subsequent chapters.
Third, the emphasis on applir ation can help students to see
that economic "theory" is not dry and irrelevant. Note that the
recommendations above stress application to different subjects
and to decision making in a variety of hypothetical situations. If
students are to be able to use economics for reaching reasoned
conclusions, they must practice doing so. To do so in a variety of
contexts is consistent with the objective of economic education
for citizenship.
Unfortunately, all teachers are not covering much of the im-
portant content in economic theory. As noted earlier, the data
from the norming of the Test of Economic Literacy suggest certain
areas of economics are not emphasized sufficiently in the high
school course. Prominent among these is macroeconomics, the
study of the functioning of the economy as a whole. This is not
surprising. Macroeconomic theory is less settled than microecon-
omic theory. It is complicated by competing schools of thought
and by greater complexity. Teachers surveyed about the areas their
students had the most trouble understanding cited macroecon-
omic areas (monetary policy, conflicting economic theories, tax
policy, and several others) far more often than most other areas."
Furthermore, there are comparatively fewer materials available to
teachers seeking resources to supplement their textbooks.
Apparently, only better teacher training and access to better
instructional strategies can remedy some of the problems men-
tioned. Teachers themselves seem to be aware of their need to
learn both more economics content and how to use available
resources. More than half of those surveyed said they needed
additional training in economics content; nearly half wanted more
training in how to teach economics.25 One source, Strategies for
n t^-0
0 i
30 Economic Education for Citizenship
Teaching Economics: High School Economic Courses, provides a
model syllabus for the principles of economics course and 22
specific strategies to enhance instruction.26 In addition, some pro-
grams from the new Economics USA video series might also
strengthen the economics offering. Additional sources are listed
in the bibliography of teaching materials.
However, one of the deficiencies in the high school course
is apparently the result of the inherent nature of the particular
course presented. Consider two examples. Some economics courses
are "consumer economics," which devote considerable time to
consumer life skills. Junior Achievement's "Applied Economics"
program includes significant attention to business concepts. The
opportunity cost is plainly time devoted to economics. While stu-
dents in these courses might be gaining valuable information in
these other areas, the norming data from the TEL show that they
re learning less economics than students in principles of eco-
nomics courses.2' This raises considerable doubt about the ability
of these students to participate effectively as citizens.
Another weaknesses in relying exclusively on the high school
economics course is the school dropout problem. Davis, in the
previously mentioned FTE report, notes that while some 25% of
the school population does not finish high school, the dropout
rate prior to 10th grade is just 2%. Thus, he argues, "If we want
all students to have some fundamental economic knowledge about
the nature of the economic system and how it works, it is important
to incorporate economics at the middle/junior high school level
when the dropout rate is negligible."28 Finally, because the high
school course is most often placed in the senior year, reliance on
it sacrifices the power and value of economics in support of other
subjects, especially in the social studies, which students will have
taken prior to the economics course.
In sum, the high school economics course is increasingly
being required for graduation, although infusion remains the dom-
inant approach. An economics course can be effective, if it covers
the right material and is presented properly. There are some prob-
lems with current courses, but the only inherent ones seem to be
associated with courses that include substantial non-economics
content.One final note before moving to some other aspects of eco-
nomics in the curriculum. The foregoing presentation is not meant
to convey that there is an either/or choice between the economics
course and the infusion approaches. Advocates of economic edu-
38
Economics in the Curriculum 31
cation would clearly prefer both. An optimum program would
probably include general curricular infusion, infusion in discrete
units (perhaps in the middle school social studies courses), and a
"capstone" economics course. This combination ensures that all
students will receive instruction in economics and that economics
will be presented early enough for it to have value in illuminating
issues in other courses. Since students will have had substantial
economics earlier, a combination would enable the capstone course
to be a richer, more complex investigation focusing on reaching
reasoned decisions on economic issues, as opposed to concen-
trating primarily on instruction in basic concepts.
However. given scarce educational resources, some school
districts may be forced to choose. Any comparison of infusion with
the high school course must consider costs of implementation.
The study by Brenneke and Soper of a carefully nurtured DEEP in
one school district raises significant issues concerning its cost-
effectiveness: "The general conclusion, then, is not very encour-
aging. DEEP curriculum development may simply be too expen-
sive, too time consuming, and too much for the average school
system to implement correctly." They suggest that the return for
the resources invested may be superior in some alternative ap-
proach.29 Whether the development of a model economics cur-
riculum will significantly reduce these costs and change this
conclusion remains to be seen. Also, as suggested earlier, an al-
ternative approach might be infusion in discrete units, conceivably
a less costly alternative.
My reading of the evidence is that, where the economics
course is required for graduation, and where that course is exclu-
sively an economics course, student performance on tests is su-
perior to those receiving instruction by infusion. However, this
does not settle the argument. Test scores alone do not take into
account other aspects noted above, such as the dropout rate.
Economics and Quantitative Data
The first chapter presents information on the essential content
and skills for economic literacy drawn from the Framework doc-
ument of the JCEE. One important area mentioned in the Frame-
work has received scant attention in studies of economics curricula,
teaching, and student learning the area of measurement con-
cepts and methods or, more broadly, skills in interpreting and
using quantitative data And yet, few in economic education would
3
32 Economic Education for Citizenship
deny that this is an area crucial to student understanding of eco-
nomics. This section argues that QD (quantitative data) skills fall
into a "neverland" between the mathematics and the social studies
curricula, much to the detriment of the economics curriculum
and teaching.
It should be clear by now that most teaching of economics
is by social studies teachers. The available evidence indicates an
important gap between the teaching of computational skills to
precollege students in mathematics classes and the development
of QD skills for decision making in social studies classes. The
mathematics curriculum and classroom materials, including most
textbooks, typically stress mastery of computational skills. In the
social studies, there is a long tradition of commitment to devel-
oping the decision making skills of students, but little emphasis
on the skillful use of quantitative data. This is partly because QD
is often regarded as the province of mathematics and because social
studies teachers are generally unprepared to teach students how
to use quantitative information. Consequently, neither mathemat-
ics nor social studies teachers have the clear responsibility, ability,
materials, or time in class to teach students how to use quantitative
data to make decisions. The resulting gap is manifested in the
inability of students to select, interpret, and apply quantitative
information to economic or other social problems.
The increased emphasis on "basics" might exacerbate this
problem. This concern is explicitly noted in A Nation at Risk as
the danger of emphasizing the improving of the basic mathematics
skills of students with inadequate attention to developing the abil-
ity of students to use these skills to make decisions or solve prob-
lems in economics and other subjects. As stated by the report:
"Some worry that schools may emphasize such rudiments as read-
ing and computation at the expense of other essential skills such
as comprehension, analysis, solving problems, and drawing con-
clusions."3"
The ability to use quantitative data is critical to each of the
"essential skills" mentioned in the report. If individuals can neither
comprehend the relevant data nor use it to analyze the problem,
their abilities to solve problems and reach conclusions will be
deficient. They will find it difficult to understand or participate in
the public debates on many significant economic and other issues
that have important quantitative aspects such as nuclear arms con-
trol, the federal budget deficit, or whether the social programs
4u
Economics in the Cur:iculum 33
begun in the sixties were effective. Skill in using QD is critical to
economic education for citizenship as defined in the first chapter.
On the positive side, many of the materials available for in-
struction in economics include lessons based on the use of QD.
Also, many recent secondary texts in economics emphasize QD
skills, often in special "skill builder" sections. But, there is no
evidence that lessons emphasizing quantitative skills are being
extensively used or that much about it is formally included in
curricula. In sum, this is an important area of the economics cur-
riculum that needs much attention from economic education re-
searchers and curriculum developers.
Values and the Economics Curriculum
Curriculum writers and developers of materials in economics
have placed considerably more emphasis on the use of gmls as
criteria for evaluating policy outcomes as a way of reaching de-
cisions, a crucial part of economic education for citizenship. The
JCEE Framework stresses the role of broad social goals, such as
growth, equity, and economic freedom. Many economics instruc-
tional materials have used a variation of the "five-step decision
making n odel" developed in the Trade-offs video series.3' This
model explicitly uses Lriteria to evaluate the consequences of
alternatives. The process is essentially it.? same as the one used
as an example in the first chapter. Chapter I also notes that this
approach implicitly contains a view of the role of values in the
economics curriculum and embraces the standard economists' view
of positive and normative economics. This same view i explicit
in the entire preceding discussion of curriculum. This section
develops these themes in more detail
The goal of mainstream economics is to develop a science
squarely within the positivist tradition. Most economists believe
that economic theory and research reveal generalizations based
on positive concepts that explain the world as it is. These concepts
and generalizations are seen as ..estable propositions and predic-
tions, just as propositions in the hard sciences can be tested.a For
example, economists are willing to subject the idea that "at higher
prices people want less of a given commodity" to scrutiny. Further,
they develop theories to explain anomalous situations that must
be integrated into the discipline. Thus, much of the work in ma-
croeconomics in recent years has been devoted to handling the
anomalies presented by the real world in the 1970s and 1980s.
34 Economic Education for Citizenship
Normative economics is sharply distinguished from positive
economics. Kennedy has given a fairly standard definition: -
Positive economics is concerned with what is: for example, when the
government enacts a policy, positive economics analyzes what happens in
the economy in response to enacting this policy. Normative economics
takes as a starting point the results of positive economics and is concerned
with what ought to be: for instance, with whether or not the results of a
certain policy are desirable. It is important to isolat,_ value judgments so
mat persons responsible for making them (generally, politicians) can make
decisions free of complications associated with poiitive economics."
Economists often disagree on economic issues. Those disa-
greements can be about aspects of positive economics, for instance
economic theory or the interpretation of evidence. Ultimately such
disputes should be settled by better theories and new evidence.
More often (or perhaps, more visibly) economists disagree on
normative economics, for example on which policy is better. Those
disagreements are fundamentally abou. values, that is about which
outcomes are more desirable. As Watts has pointed out, "when
economists speak about values and normative concerns they speak
not as economists, and not with any special standing and expertise,
but only as individual citizens."34
The implications for an economics curriculum that empha-
sizes effective citizenship implicit in this view are straightforward
and clear:
1. The curriculum should clearly distinguish positive and nor-
mative economics.
2. The positive economics portion of the economics curric-
ulum should focus on the teaching of generalizations and
positive concepts given the state of knowledge in the dis-
cipline.
3. Economic education for citizenship must include the ex-
amination of economic issues, which requires attention to
both positive and normative economics.
4. When dealing with economic issues, data and positive con-
cepts should be used to analyze the consequences of al-
ternatives. However, the normative side of the economics
curriculum must clearly recognize that value positions de-
termine the selection of the "better" policy outcome.
It is clear that in this view economic education is not meant
to teach students what to value, nor which value is most important
in any specific situation. In a sense, the role for values comes after
the teaching of positive economics as students apply values as
42,
Economics in the Curriculum 35
criteria in valuing. Social studies educators will recognize the po-
tential correspondence of this view with "values analysis." Al-
though value analysis goes beyond the stage of simply specifying
values as criteria used to judge outcomes, it emphasizes the same
rational approach tc analyzing consequences and warranting be-
liefs that is so impoi ..:nt in effective citizenship.
The discussion of curriculum thus far has been explicitly based
on the acceptance of the positivist position. Because this per-
spective has the general support of most economic educators and
American economists, it can be regarded as the traditional or stand-
ard view. But this does not mean it has been accepted universally.
The next section explores some of the criticism of the traditional
view and the implications for the economics curriculum and cit-
izenship.
Criticism of the Traditional Approach
One significant issue raised by some critics is whether there
is indeed a clear separation between the positive and normative
in economics. For instance, Nelson and Carlson argue: "Ideology,
then, as it is commonly used, might appear to be antithetical to
economic education. Yet, any attempt at separation of ideology
from economic education is fraudulent. Economics, far from being
the pure truth, involves ideologies, some or which are contradic-
tory and competing."" Thus, in this view, t le positive aspects of
economics are not value free since they arc inherently influenced
by ideology. Nor can economic analysis be free of values.
This means that positive concepts and generalizations cannot
be taught as "fact" or "truth." The ideological nature of economics
suggests that the concepts and generalizations of economics are
based on assumptions and "implied theories of human nature and
cause and effect" that are subject to challenge.46 In this view, such
concepts and generalizations are, at best, hypotheses subject to
revision. At worst, they are really only narrow constructs from
one ideological point of view that cannot represent the "true"
nature of a far more complex reality. Moreover, it has been argued
that any curriculum in the social studies that is essentially built
on the structure of the social science disciplines cripple free social
inquiry by restricting investigations to a single perspective.r
For these critics, basing the curriculum on economic "knowl-
edge" (whether concept-based or generalization-based) is a fatal
error. Analysis in the classroom by the use of standard economic
43
36 Economic Education for Citizenship
concepts must also include rigorous questioning of the assump-
tions implicit in those concepts. The resulting analysis must clearly
be treated as merely one hypothesis from one ideological per-
spective. Moreover, other perspectives must also be introduced.;"
In short, this view requires a complete reorganization of the eco-
nomics curriculum based on the process of inquiry into the reality
of the world from multiple perspectives.
Another challenge to the traditional view of values, econom-
ics, and the curriculum comes from the various "revisionist" camps
in social studies education. It is far beyond the scope of Lnis work
to present a full description and critique of the work by scholars
writing in this perspective. Their arguments are deep and com-
plicated. But, because their work is relatively recent and has pro-
foundly different implications for economics in the curriculum
and, particularly, the role of values, a few comments are in order.39
First and foremost, note that many of the revisionists go be-
yond the claim that economics is ideological; they reject the whole
notion of positivism. For them, not only is any distinction between
the positive and the normative fictitious, but the very methods of
science and the restrictions on the problems chosen for investi-
gation (among other things) limit inquiry into the true nature of
society and the relationships of humans in that society. The entire
positivist process is riddled with values. The result is that positivist
investigations are by their nature conservative endeavors that help
to promote the existing state of affairs. This critique especially
indicts social studies as social science and value analysis, the two
closest social studies philosophical antecedents of economic edu-
cation as it has been advocated by most professionals in economic
education. It is also an indictment of economics .-s practiced by
mainstream economists.
Second, scholars in this perspective have a fundamentally dif-
ferent view of decision making and education for citizenship. They
argue that social education should be an agent of social change
based on the exposure of the inequities of society as analyzed from
many perspectives, including theories of exploitation and class
dominance. This cannot be done in a curriculum based on the
traditional approach to economics, decision making, and citizen-
ship. As noted above, revisionists believe the traditional approach
must serve to support the status quo. After all, decisions by citizens
will have been constrained to problems defined within the existing
social and economic relationships and by traditional, conservative
modes of analysis.
.4 4
Economics in the Curriculum 37
Third, the gulf between the revisionists and the positivists is
so great that it seems hard for proponents of opposing views to
find common ground on which to argue with one another. The
exchange of published arguments between Romanish on one hand
(revisionist) and Watts and Walstad (economists) on the other is
a case in point.° Romanish argued, in part, that using "critical
theory" (a method of analysis from the revisionist view) he twind
economics textbooks to be biased. Watts and Walstad, arguing in
the positivist tradition, said Romanish had not made his case. Ro-
manish's reply reiterated that he was using a different mode of
analysis.Note that his reply rebuts the criticism by claiming a different
set of analytical rules. No ground was yielded on either side. The
implication is that mainstream economic education might be un-
der repeated attacks that cannot be deflected by arguments within
the positivist tradition in which economic educators are trained.
Indeed, the real core of the arguments will probably turn less on
the specifics of particular issues, like textbook bias, and more on
the fundamental differences in the modes of analysis and their
underlying philosophies.
Finally, the revisionist perspective must be seen as work in
progress. Their ideas have not (as yet) met with wide acceptance.
As Stanley has noted, they have much to do before their critiques
can form the basis of alternative approaches in curriculum and
instruction in economics or in the social studies generally:" None-
theless, those interested in economic education curriculum de-
velopment should at least be aware of the fundamental challenge
to mainstream thought launched by those from the revisionist
perspective.
Quite a different challenge to the generally accepted role of
values in economic education is presented by those who believe
that the curriculum should foster acceptance of our economic
system. To proponen of this view, the superiority of a market
system is abundantly clear. Preservation of the system demands
that students learn to appreciate and accept the basic tenets of
the system. And, preservation of the economic system is part of
maintaining the health of the entire culture. Thus, curriculum (and
instruction and materials) should promote student valuing of the
system. Social studies educators might recognize how this view of
values and economics corresponds to the "cultural transmission"
approach to values instruction in the social studies.
45
38 Economic Education for Citizenship
This role of values in economic education must be rejected
by those that I have argued hold the mainstream view. First, the
"appreciation" approach violates the distinction between norma-
tive and positive economics held by the economics profession.
Second, this approach runs counter to the view of economic edu-
cation as education in the economic way of thinking. The purpose
of economic education for citizenship developed in Chapter I
makes clear that the focus should be on using economics to reach
reasoned conclusions. Third, the research evidence does not show
that instruction in accepting some set of values is effective.42 In-
deed, Walstad, the leading researcher in the area of attitudes and
values in economic education, has concluded that to influence
economic attitudes, one must focus on economic understanding
(and not vice versa ).43 Thus, it is not clear that the "appreciation"
approach could reach its goals.
To summarize, there is a mainstream view in economics edu-
cation of the role of values in the economics curriculum. It is
derived from the economics profession's distinction between nor-
mative and positive economics. Values are relevant in choosing
among competing alternatives after data and positive concepts
have been used to analyze alternatives. This distinction is con-
sistent with economic education for citizenship as it has been
defined here.
The traditional approach has been criticized for failing to
acknowledge the ideological nature of economics, presuming that
positive concepts can be taught as truths rather than hypotheses,
and failing to explore other legitimate perspectives. The positivist
approach has also been attacked ay social studies revisionists who
have a fundamentally different philosophical perspective. The re-
visionists, while not very influential regarding economics curricula
at present, are active researchers and reviewers whose arguments
will be difficult to rebut, in part because they stand on radically
different ground. Finally, there is criticism from those who ad-
vocate what I have called the "appreciation" approach to economic
education, which is similar to the cultural transmission view of
values in the social studies. This approach is inconsistent with
economic education as it is conceived by mainstream economic
educators.
Summary
This chapter reviews a number of aspects of economics in
the curriculum. It begins with an examination of the infusion of
46
Economics in the Curriculum 39
economics in the K-12 curriculum and emphasizes that this is the
dominant model. Evidence on the nationally implemented DEEP
of the JCEE shows that it is an effective program, but that it might
be weakest in delivering strong curricula to participating schools.
Aspects of a model economics curriculum are examined, and it is
noted that several of these had been, or are being developed, which
might remedy the curriculum weaknesses of DEEP.
Required high school economics courses are becoming in-
creasingly popular. It is argued that those courses should be fo-
cused on economics principles and analysis of economic issues
consistent with economic education for effective citizenship. The
evidence shows that such courses can be effective with students
of all ability levels. Elements of an effective economics course are
presented as well as deficiencies in the way such courses are often
conducted.
It is argued that a combination of infusion K-12, infusion in
discrete units in middle school social studies courses, and a re-
quired high school course is the preferred choice. However, scarce
resources might force districts to choose among these. A well-
conducted, required high school economics course appears to
produce higher test scores than infusion. However, that is not the
only criterion on which such a choice should be made. In fact,
the data do not exist to conduct a true cost-benefit analysis.
It seems that the area of skills in using quantitative data is an
important but neglected aspect of the economics curriculum. QD
often falls in a gap between the social studies and math curricula.
There are materials in economics that contain lessons that stress
the development of QD skills, but no evidence on how heavily
such materials are used. There is virtually no research on QD in
the economics curriculum or on the QD skills of students who
have studied economics.
Finally, the role of values in the economics curriculum is
explored. The dominant model is based on the positivist tradition
of economics and the distinction between positive and normative
economics. The chapter also presents a brief review of the chal-
lenge posed by critics of the traditional approach.
Notes' David C. Berliner, "The Half. Full Glass," in Using What We Kns-w About
Teaching, edited by Philip L Hosford (Alexandria, VA.. Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development, 1984 ), 54.
'Gail McCutcheon, "Curriculum Theory/Curriculum Practice: A Gap or The
Grand Canyon?" in Current Thought on Curriculum, edited by Alex Molnar
4 7
40 Economic Education for Citizenship
(Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1985),
45. 1 Yankelovich, Skelly and White, Inc National Survey of Economic Edu-
cation 1981 (Phillips Petroleum Co., 1981), 43-9 The data sum to more than
100% because some teachers reported for the several different courses that they
%%ere teaching.
' Dennis C. Brennan, A Jtudy of State Mandates for Economics Instruction..
1985-6 (New York. Joint Council on Economic Education). Nine states mandate
infusion only; eight, a required course; seven, both infusion and a required course.
' Strictly speaking Mini-Society is an integrated social studies program that
draws on many areas of the social studies. However, the dominant organizing
force behind the program is economics and the amount of economics content
in the program is far higher than in the typical social studies program.
6 Kourilsky has pioneered the instruction of economics for elementary stu-
dents and has published many studies based on her work. See for example Marilyn
L Kourilsky, "Children's Learning of Economics. The Imperative and the Hurdles,"
in "Developing Economic Literacy," edited by Steven L Miller, Theory into Prac.
Lice 26 (Summer 1987): 204.
'Steven L. Miller and Stephen A. Rose, "The Great Depression: A Textbook
Case of Problems with American History Textbooks," Theory and Research in
Social Education 11 (Spring 1983): 2539.
"Judith S. Brenneke and John C Soper, "Economics in the School Curricu-
lum," in "Developing Economic Literacy, edited by Steven L Miller Theory into
Practice 26 (Summer 1987): 187.
9 Beverly J. Armento, "A Study of the Basic Economic Concepts Presented
in DEEP Curriculum Guides," Journal of Economic Education 14 (Summer
1983): 26.
wYankelovich, Skelly and White, Inc , National Survey of Economic Edu-
cation 1981, 43.
" William B. Walstad and Michael Watts, "The Current Status of Economics
in the K-12 Curriculum" in Economics in the School Curriculum, K- 12 edited
by Mark C. Schug (Washington D.C: National Education Association and Joint
Council on Economic Education, 1985), 14-15.
', Ibid., 16.
"Judith S. Brenneke and John C. Soper, 'Economics in the School Curric-
ulum," 187. AdJaional evidence on the weakness of the infusion approach is a
major point made by John C. Soper and William B Walstad, "What Is High School
Economics?. Posttest Knowledge, Attitudes, and Course Content," dated February,
1987 and submitted for publication to theJournal of EconomicEducation (cited
with permission of the authors).
" Readers interested in a fuller discussion of the kinds of problems encoun-
tered in assessing DEEP research should see the following articles. John C. Soper
and Judith S. Brenneke, "The Test of Economic Literacy and an Evaluation of the
DEEP System," journal of Economic Education 12 (Summer 1981). 1-14; William
Luker, "DEEP Revisited, " Journal of Economic Education 15 (Spring 1984): 11 I
I 18; and William B. Walstad and John C. Soper "DEEP Revisited- A Reply," journal
of Economic Education 15 (Spring 1984): 119-122.
"Michael Watts, "A Statewide Assessment of Precollege Economic Under-
standing and Deep," journal of Economic Education 16 (Summer 1985). 235
'6Judith S. Brenneke and John C. Soper, "A Qualitative Evaluation of an
Intensive D.E.E.P.," paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Eco
nomics Association, Washington D.C., March 6, 1987, 11.12.
" Steven L Miller and Beverly J Armento, "The Effect of the Developmental
Economic Education Program on the Elementary Social Studies Curriculum,"
46
JO
Economics in the Curriculum 41
paper presented at the American Educational Research Association meeting in
San Francisco, April, 1986
' "James E. Davis, Teaching Economics to Young Adolescents. A Research.
Based Rationale (San Francisco: Foundation for Teaching Economics, 1987), 20-
21. i° Beverly J. Armento, editor and project director, Scope and Sequence for
Economic Education K-12: A Proposed Framework (Atlanta. National Specialized
Center for Learning Theory and Economic Education, Georgia State University,
1987).2° Davis, Teaching Economics to Young Adolescents: A Research-Based Ra-
tionale, 66-67.
2, Brennan, A Study of State Mandates for Economics instruction.. 1985.6,
3. 22John Morton, "The High School Economics Course Comes of Age," in
"Developing Economic Literacy," edited by Steven L Miller, Theory into Practice
26 (,ummer 1987): 207.
2' Ibid., 207. All economics courses at Morton's high school are a full year
in length. This allows a portion of the course to be devoted to "personal" eco-
nomics. But even courses for lower ability students (which do contain somewhat
more emphasis on personal economics) are primarily principles courses.
"Yankelovich, Skelly and White, Inc., National Survey of Economic Edu-
cation 1981, 58.59
25 Ibid , 86.
M' John S. Morton, Stephen G. Buckles, Steven L Miller, David M. Nelson, and
Edward C. Prehn, Teaching Strategies: High School Economics Courses (New
York Joint Council on Economic Education, 1985), 173-177.
r John C. Soper and William Walstad, "New Data on the Economics Affect
of U.S High School Students," paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Eastern Economics Association, Washington, D.C., March 1987.
" Davis, Teaching Economics to Young Adolescents: A Research-Based Ra-
tionale, 52.
29Judith S. Brenneke and John C. Soper, "A Qualitative Evaluation of an
Intensive D.E.E.P.," 12.
"' National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk (Wash-
ington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1983), 10.
"Trade -offs (Bloomington, IN: Agency for Instructional Technology, 1978).
'2 Milton Friedman, "The Methodology of Positive Economics," in Essays in
Positive Economics edited by Milton Friedman (Chicago. University of Chicago
Press, 1953), 3.43.
"Peter Kennedy, Macroeconomics (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1975), 12.13.
" Michael Watts, "Ideology, Textbooks, and the Teaching of Economics," in
"Developing Economic Literacy," edited by Steven L Miller, Theory into Practice
26 (Summer 1987): 193.
"Jack L Nelson and Kenneth Carlson, "Ideology and Economic Education"
in Economic Education. Links to the Social ,Studies edited by S. Stowell Symmes
(Washington, D.C.: National Council for the Social Studies, 1981), 83.
"' Ibid., 86.
"Beverly J. Armento, "Promoting Economic Literacy," in Social Studies and
Social Sciences. A Fifty-Year Perspcctive edited by Stanley P. Wronski and Donald
H. Bragaw (Washington, D.C.: National Council for the Social Studies, 1981),
104. " Jack I.. Nelson and Kenneth Carlson, "Ideology and Economic Education,"
94. '9 Interested readers can find an excellent summary of many of the major
arguments of the revisionists in William Stanley, "Recent Research in the Foun-
4')
42 Economic Education for Citizenship
dations of Social Education: 1976-1983," it Review of Research in Social Studies
Education. 1976-1983 edited by William Stanley (Boulder, Colozado: ERIC/ChESS)
349-81. Some of what follows borrows heavily on Stanley's summary.
4° Readers should examine the following three articles: Bruce A. Romanish,
"Modem Secondary Economics Textbooks and Ideological Bias," Theory and
Research in Social Education 11 (Spring 1983): 1-24; William B. Walstad and
Michael W. Watts, "A Response to Romanish: Ideological Bias in Secondary Eco-
nomics Textbooks," Theory and Research in Social Education li (Winter 1984):
25-35; and Bruce A. Romanish, A Brief Response to Watts and Walstad," Theory
and Research in Social Education 12 (Spring 1984): 49-51.
4' William Stanley, Review of Research in Social Studies Education: 1976.
1983, 381.
4, Michael Watts, "Ideology, Textbooks, and the Teaching of Economics,"
194. 4' William Walstad, "Attitudes, Opinions, and Economic Understanding," in
"Developing Economic Literacy," edited by Steven L Miller, Theory into Practice
26 (Summer 1987) 193
5u
CHAPTER III
Instruction in Economics
This chapter treats economics instruction, what and how
teachers teach. To some extent, this is what economic education
is, irrespective of definitions offered by economic educators and
curricula written by committees or textbook writers. Thus, it is
important to investigate classroom teaching practices and how to
increase the quantity and quality of economics instruction related
to more effective citizenship.
The chapter examines what instruction in economics should
be like by considering these areas: ( I ) an instructional model based
on the purpose of economic education; (2) a review of some basic
principles of effective economics instruction drawn from research
and learning theory; (3) some examples of effective instruction;
and (4) typical instructional practices of classroom teachers. What
is taught is influenced heavily by the materials teachers use, es-
pecially textbooks. While this chapter unavoidably touches on
materials, a fuller discussion of that subject is presented in Chapter
N.
An Instructional Model
Economic education for citizenship presents some very clear
implications for how economics should be taught. Chief among
these is that instruction should help students to reach reasoned
conclusions based on the application of economics to problems.
As noted earlier, this involves the teaching of important concepts
and the application of these concepts to specific problems. More-
over, it means using criteria as yardsticks to measure the conse-
quences of alternatives. In this way students are practicing the
method to be used in making decisions as informed citizens. Thus,
economics instruction should emphasize both content and proc-
ess. A model of the economic reasoning process is found in A
Framework for Teaching the Basic Concepts. There are five steps
in the process:
44 Economic Education for Citizenship
1. State the problem or issue.
2. Determine the personal or broad social goals to be attained.
3. Consider the principal alternative means of ach'eving these
goals.
4. Select the economic concepts needed to understand the
problem and use them to appraise the merits of each al-
ternative.
5. Decide which alternative best leads to the attainment of
the most goals or the most important goals.'
Note that this is the process used in the example of economic
reasoning provided in the first chapter. It figures prominently in
many of the materials produced by the Joint Council on Economic
Education and others.
I will argue that this decision-making model forms an instruc-
tional model. But first, permit me to add something of considerable
importance to the "five- step" model. The last two steps are really
more complicated (or should be more complicated) than might
be inferred from the Framework. First, step four should properly
include data or evidence as well as the application of concepts.
This is especially important when economic theories conflict on
a given issue or when theory points to the existence of both costs
and benefits of a given policy, but does not determine the size of
the costs and benefits. For instance, economic theory clearly sug-
gests that policies to reduce pollution should be applied through
standards that are successively more stringent until the point is
reached where the costs of a more stringent standard equal the
benefits created by that standard. Beyond that standard, the next
most stringent standard will generate costs that exceed its benefits.
While this theory is clear enough, it does not in itself provide the
answer to a specific pollution issue. Data from the real world are
needed to determine the point where marginal costs and benefits
are equal. Thus, analysis of a specific economic issue requires both
the application of concepts and the use of data or evidence.
Second, the fifth step also involves a third test of consequences
against criteria, but only two are mentioned: (1) Which alternative
meets the most goals? (2) Which alternative meets the most im-
portant goals? To this must be added a third point: How great are
the costs and benefits of the alternatives in terms of the goals?
For example, suppose students were considering a choice
between two policies, A and B, and were measuring their conse-
quences against two criteria (broad social goals), equity and growth.
Suppose further that the students decide that equity was the more
Instruction in Economics 45
important criterion and that their analysis (applying both concepts
and evidence) showed that policy. A promoted equity at the ex-
pense of growth; for policy B it was the other way around. Should
the students therefore choose policy A? Not necessarily. If A costs
a great deal of growth for a small gain in equity while B creates a
great deal of growth for a small price in equity, one might very
well choose B, in spite of the preference for equity over growth.
So, one must also determine how great are the costs and benefits
in terms of the goals.
The point in presenting these two somewhat complicated
additions to the model, aside from their inherent importance to
correct economic reasoning, is to underscore the significance of
process in model economics instruction. If teaching students the
process of economic reasoning is important to economic educa-
tion for citizenship, the model must be carefully attended to by
teachers.Furthermore, I contend that this is more than a model of
economic reasoning; it is also a model of economics instruction.
It specifies a purpose, instructional components, and sequence. It
is applicable to a variety of different courses and grade levels,
partly because it is a decision-making model and an instructional
model with great generalizability. While it does not answer all of
the instructional questions that could be raised, it does point the
way to many answers for teachers faced with implementing effec-
tive economics instruction. Here are some implications of the
model for instruction. Bear in mind that they are general sugges-
tions that might not fit a particular situation.
First, wherever possible teachers should organize instruction
in economics around a problem to be investigated by the students.
The organizing problem may be one that occurs in another subject
or area of study, such as U.S. history or global education or in
social studies units in the elementary grades. These are opportun-
ities to infuse economics into another subject and practice the
reasoning implicit in the model.
Second, students should receive specific instruction in prob-
lem definition, beginning in the elementary grades. The old saw
"If you don't know where you're going, you're likely to end up
someplace else" is applicable. If the problem is misspecified, the
answers will lead us somewhere else. Learning to define a problem
properly is an important skill that must be carefully nurtured.
Consider these two questions: How much should the mini-
mum wage be raised? What should be done about the minimum
53
46 Economic Education for Citizenship
wage? These two examples are plainly not the same problem. The
first question is far more specific and precludes removing the
minimum wage for any class of workers (or all workers) by the
way the problem is stated. Unlike the second statement, the first
assumes the minimum wage should remain. The second is far more
general because it admits more alternatives.
This raises a third point, teaching about alternatives. Devel-
oping options to choose among is also a skill that must be devel-
oped through practice. Educators cannot assume that students will
automatically be able to produce long lists of alternatives. After
all, students have had extensive experience in responding to sit-
uations in which there seemed, without careful reflection, to be
only one response: do as authorities have said, do as your friends
do, do as you have done before. Following authorities, peer pres-
sure, and habit do not help students to produce creative alterna-
tives.Fourth, teachers must work with students to promote careful
analysis because of its crucial role in decision making and effective
citizenship. Some teachers might be tempted to accept whatever
students produce as long as they have arrived at the "right" con-
clusion. However, it is the process that students will likely retain,
not the conclusions reached. Much like math teachers want stu-
dents to show their work so that specific weaknesses can be iden-
tified, so economic educators should carefully examine how the
students do analysis. One such device is the so-called "decision-
making grid" presented in the Framework, is reproduced in Figure
1. 2 It should properly be viewed not simply as a format for students
to use, but also as a formative evaluative instrument to check how
well students are analyzing the consequences of alternatives.
For instance, if students were to incorrectly evaluate the con-
sequences of one of the policies in Figure 1, this could be evidence
of lack of student understanding of specific economic concepts or
generalizations, or misreading of the evidence. In the specific ex-
ample from the Framework, the "support egg prices" alternative
cannot help domestic taxpayers. Thus, a " + " in that box would
indicate a problem. Such errors by citizens on judging issues result
in policies that do not promote the goals they favor.
Finally, it is important for teachers to use both per. anal and
group or social decisions. Students must learn the significant dif-
ferences between personal and social decisions. Chief among these
is the role of valuing criteria. The order of priority of personal
decision criteria is a matter of individual choice. The individual
54
Sample Decision-making Grid for the Egg Diversion Case
ALTERNATIVES
GOALS OR CRITERIA
Efficiency
Equity Security
Help
Domestic
Producers
Help
Domestic
Consumers
Help
Domestic
Taxpayers
Help
Foreign
Producers
Help
Foreign
Consumers
Help
Domestic
Producers
Help
Domestic
I Jnsumets
Help
Foreign
Producers
Help
Foreign
Consumers
Rely on
competitive
market tomes
(State A)
+-+000+00
Support prices by
state ecg
board purchases
(State 6)
+++_+
Other
Figu
48 Economic Education for Citizenship
may reach his or her own conclusion about a social issue as well.
But a group decision about a social problem is bound to expose
differing valuation of the social goals used as criteria. Studentsmay
find that group decisions turn on arguments about goals. They may
also discover that their arguments mirror some of the disagree-
ments on policy among national leaders and experts. Regarding
economic education for citizenship, these are important insights.
Students should have a clearer idea about the role of criteria when
people disagree on social issues.
Clearly, students should be given the opportunity to practice
the reasoning process early, often, and in a variety of contexts,
!u:luding both personal and social problems. Students in the pri-
mary grades can begin with simple personal or family problems
and can built'. skills in generating alternatives through activities,
such as brainstorming. By the intermediate grades, students are
ready to use the model in a wider variety of situations. The Trade-
offs video series provides some excellent examples. Students are
engaged in personal decisions in programs 2, 5, 7, 8, and 11. Group
decisions are found in programs 3, 4, 6, 14, and 15. In each case
the model can be used. Furthermore, many of the programs in the
series call on students to generate alternatives, encouraging the
development of that valuable skill.
To sum up, the economic reasoning model is also an instruc-
tional model. It suggests an organizing focus for economics that
centers on making decisions about personal and social problems,
and it implies specific instruction on the skills needed in each stage
of the process. It is useful across grade levels and subjects.
The Model Applied to the High School
Economics Course
The problem is likely to be the focus of economics in the
elementary grades or when economics is infused in other courses
simply because this is the context in which economics is most
likely to appear. These courses or grade levels normally do not
have discrete economics components. However, the role of the
problem is a significant issue in the high school economics course.
Should the academic discipline of economics or the economic
problem be the organizing focus for planning instruction in the
high school course? For example, a teacher could try to engage
students in an inquiry of what should be done abopt minimm
wages. This inevitably would lead to. examining the effects of price
Sc
Instruction in Economics 49
controls in general, and evidence on the minimum wage in par-
ticular. Alternatively, one might teach about price controls and
then have students apply what they have learned to a series of
issues minimum wages, rent controls, and so on. The first is an
example of organizing instruction around a problem; that is, solv-
ing the problem is the central focus of instruction. Students learn
about price controls in order to be able to decide about minimum
wages. The second is an example of organizing around the content
of the discipline. Students learn economics in the traditional se-
quence, but with an emphasis on application and reasoning.
So which approach is preferred? To investigate this question,
it might help to place economic education in the context of broader
social studies education since this issue is a familiar one to most
social studies educators. On a continuum of emphasis of either
content at one end and process at the other, "traditional" teaching
in the social studies is generally placed at the content end, while
the pure "inquiry" approach is placed at the other.
Supporters of the inquiry approach have long held that in-
struction should be an investigation into a problem perceived by
the students. Without a deep sense of need to inquire, true in-
vestigation cannot take place. Furthermore, such investigations are
likely to be multi-disciplinary, bringing arguments, concepts, and
data to bear from history or whatever social science is appropriate.
The teaching of specific content is relatively unimportant. This is
perfectly consistent with the emphasis in inquiry on process.
However, because the curriculum is typically organized, es-
pecially at the secondary level, into discrete subjects (for example,
world history or government), approaches that consider themes
or issues or problems in a multi-disciplinary way fly in the face of
the traditional curriculum. Moreover, the traditional approach to
teaching the social studies, as noted earlier, emphasizes the content
of the subject being taught as opposed to investigation of a prob-
lem. Research into the practices of social studies teachers shows
that the traditional approach still dominates (more on this subject
shortly).Economic education, as it has been described here, is located
somewhere in the middle. It is squarely within the social studies
education approach known as "social studies as social science"
(or SS). With SS, there is an emphasis on learning the concepts of
the subject matter (the content), but also on application in solving
problems and reaching conclusions (the process). Thus, sociology
courses are about doing sociology the application of the con-
9,f
50 Economic Education for Citizenship
cepth of sociology to social problems. Similarly, economics courses
are about doing economics.
Note that under this approach, neither pure inquiry nor tra-
ditional teaching are logically possible. However, since we are
working along a continuum, the question remains as to whether
economics courses should edge toward the process (inquiry) side
or the content (traditional) side. The following are tests for teach-
ers to use as a guide:
1. How important is it that students determine the subject
of the classroom inquiry?
2. How important is it for students to perceive a need to
investigate a problem?
3. How important is it to cover the content of the discipline
during the course?
4. How important is it for the teacher to feel in control of
the day to day operation of the class?
To the extent that a teacher believes the first two are relatively
more important than the latter two, he or she should lean hard to
the process side. This can be done while maintaining the structure
and sequence of the discipline and "covering" the important eco-
nomics material. When moving into the teaching of a cluster of
economic concepts (for instance, international trade), the teacher
can offer a menu of economic issues in this area for students to
choose among. For example, the teacher might list the following:
Is the trade agreement with Canada in our best interests? What
should be the position on trade of the US in the next GATT (Gen-
eral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) round? What should be the
US position on US trade with South Africa? With the Soviet Union?
Any of these (and others) contain the opportunity to include in-
struction in important concepts related to international trade.
By selecting the issues for this menu carefully, the teacher
can ensure that the appropriate content will be "covered" which-
ever issue the students select. The teacher might select issues
thought to be related to student interest or needs. He or she can
also work hard to "sell" the students on the importance of the
problem(s) that will be investigated. Students will have a rolc in
shaping the problem, in defining it and setting its limits.
For the advocates of pure inquiry, these steps are poor sub-
stitutes for the real thing since the basic SS approach is itself fatally
flawed (in their view). But, given the SS approach, these steps
might foster student engagement in the problcm and emphasize
the investigation of the problem (process) relative to teaching the
5E
Instruction in Economics 51
content. In any event, teachers should remember that it is essential
to emphasize content and process as equally important elements
of education in economics.
The Model Applied at Other Grade Levels
The model can be applied to younger students, even children
in the primary grades, despite the difference in their develop-
mental levels compared to high school students. This section ex-
plores some of the aspects of using the model at other grade levels.
However, one should first note the support researchers have
given to the basic thrust of the model. Marilyn Kourilsky has writ-
ten unequivocally that "... even kindergarten children can master
economic decision-making and some analytic concepts when pro-
vided with developmentally appropriate instructional interven-
tion."; Thus, at the earliest grades we can begin economic
instruction oriented toward reaching decisions. Beverly J. Armento
has noted that the literature in problem solving "... suggests that
two aspects of social science problem solving skills are general:
basic knowledge of the physical and social world and knowledge
of and ability to use general problem solving strategies." 4 This
reinforces the model's emphasis on both content and process for
all grade levels.
There are many activities and programs that have demon-
strated that children in the elementary grades can engage in eco-
nomic decision making. Trade-offs has already been mentioned.
Other examples include Kourilsky's "KinderEconomy" (for pri-
mary grades) and "Mini-Society" (for intermediate grades). The
key for all grade levels is "developmental appropriateness."
As noted above, Kourilsky focuses on the need for "devel-
opmentally appropriate" instructional intervention. This means that
in applying the model the techniques used must be at the level of
the students. For instance, Kourilsky's "Mini-Society" program be-
gins when students eventually confront a scarcity situation in the
classroom. The technique she recommends for the students to use
in solving this situation contains the same essential steps as the
model presented earlier. 3 Armento has suggested some other spe-
cific techniques that can be used to build the skills critical to the
model. These include "talk-aloud" sessions, role-taking, looking at
consequences, and speculating about long-term and short-term
effects. 6
52 Economic Education for Citizenship
Armento has also noted that the problem must be develop-
mentally appropriate. She enumerated some of the relevant criteria
in selecting a problem:
Be sure that students understand the problem and that they have enough
prior economic knowledge to critically assess the problem. Students at all
age levels can deal with developmentally appropriate problems, but even
the simplest problems often demand a great deal of relevant information
for their assessment. Students should be able to sort out the relevant from
the irrelevant data, to visually portray the problem, and to identify the
knowledge that will be needed for particular problems and the sources of
data.'
Regarding middle school students, the same concern for
matching the problem and instruction to the level of the student
has been made in a research report sponsored by the Foundation
for Teaching Economics. In the report summary, James E. Davis
noted that "more recent, but less complete, research confirms that
students aged 12 to 15 are capable of reflective reasoning."8 How-
ever, the report warned that the students in this age group should
be presented with concrete learning tasks because these students
are "in transition from concrete to formal operational thought."9
The FTE report applied these conclusions by providing guid-
ance on the "economic landscape" that might be used as the sources
for problems to be investigated and economic content. Among
these are institutions, products and services, and social roles that
are familiar to students.'" The key point is that the economic
landscape can be used to provide problems to investigate that are
concrete, and more likely to be appropriate for middle school
students.In sum, the instructional model emphasizes the knowledge,
skills, and reasoning process that are critical to developing eco-
nomic education for effective citizenship. It suggests an instruc-
tional sequence and the content to be taught. Cleary, the model
can be used at all grade levels with correct attention to both the
techniques used to implement it and the problems to which it is
applied.
Learning Theory, Research, and Instruction
While the model above helps in many ways, it does not pro-
vide specific guidance on how to teach economic content, the
concepts and generalizations that are used to analyze problems.
For answers, or at least expert advice, one must turn to learning
theory and research. Much of what follows relies on recent work
6 u
Instruction in Economics 53
by Armento, who has extensively researched the implications of
learning theory for economics instruction, and Kourilsky, probably
the leading researcher in the effects of specific teaching metho-
dologies on student learning of economics."
This is an area where more research is needed. Kourilsky has
pointed out:
The issue which remains problematic is how to teach the subject most
effectively. The current research has not yet distinguished the program
characteristics of a "very successful" classroom implementation from those
of a "marginally successful" one. Teache:s of economics who want to
implement a successful elementary school program must therefore turn to
fundamental learning principles for assistance. 12
Cognitive learning theory emphasizes the importance of or-
ganizing content to help students fit new learning into existing
knowledge. Armento has stated that how content is organized can
affect student perception of material, attention to the task, and
memory of what is presented. The significance of organization
suggests to Armento several specific strategies that teachers could
employ. First, especially with younger students, teachers should
begin by asking students to recall previous learning of content
related to whatever new ma erial is about to be presented. Ar-
mento has stressed that this review should be by the students
using their own words. This h Ips to provide a network into which
the new knowledge will fit and increases student attention to the
task and perception of the new material. Second, teachers should
help students see the relationships between related concepts and
ideas. This is especially important in economics where a specific
structure ties together concepts into clusters and clusters together
into a social science.
In presenting new ideas to students, it is important to omit
detail and complications that are not necessary or not appropriate
to the students' ability level. Where the information source (for
example, textbooks) contains too much detail, the teacher mus'
help students sort out the .mportant from the less important. pr
mento has listed some common practices ID achieve this: using
study guides and outlines and reviewing as a class the major fea-
tures of text material such as headings and italicized words. Ilia
is good teaching practice in any situation. But, economics teachers
should find this suggestion of special value because of the density
of concepts and relatcd subconcepts in economics. Recall from
Chapter I the example of concepts, subconcepts, and sub-subcon-
cepts related to market structure. The teacher must help students
54 Economic Education for Citizenship
navigate this maze of material. Incidentally, this puts special em-
phasis on the teacher's knowledge of economics, because he or
she must know what can be safely omitted without distorting the
picture.When teaching concepts, learning theory points to careful
attention to distinctions among the types of concepts. For instance,
Armento has written that some concepts, such as goods, services,
and consumers are "conjunctive concepts," which means that they
combine two or more attributes in their definitions. For instance,
"goods" are physical products and are made by humans. Con-
junctive concepts are simple, clearly defined, and can be presented
by either the example-to-definition or definition-to-example ap-
proach. By contrast, "disjunctive" concepts are complex:
[Disjunctive concepts have] several alternative meanings, depending on
[their] context. For example, we may wish to refer to regional or occu-
pational specialization or even to specialized tools for certain tasks. The
idea of multiple meanings for one word can be confusing to young learners
Concepts such as specialization are best learned when presented in a
context Case studies, pictorial examples, or vignettes are useful for show-
ing alternative contexts within which the concept may occur."
Furthermore, there are "relational concepts" which abound
in economics, e.g. monetary policy, circular flow, market. These,
according to Armento, have a "relational structure" and cannot be
learned by simply defining them for students. With these more
difficult concepts, students must understand how one idea relates
to another. For example, demand is only understood when one
comprehends how quantities demanded relate to various prices.
Thus, these ideas must be thought of and taught in related clusters.
Instruction must be "extensive and cumulative" emphasizing many
examples and a variety of contexts.
Kourilsky has thought a good bit about specific techniques
for teaching about particular concepts, especially in the elemen-
tary grades. Her research has led her to this conclusion:
Children can learn economic concepts through a variety of instructional
methodologies (i.e didactic/ materials-based approaches, technological/
media-based approaches, and inquiry-oriented/experience-based ap-
proaches) even though certain instructional methodologies may produce
better results than others."
Research in economic education cannot with precision de-
termine which of these approaches is necessarily best for particular
content in a specific educational setting. But Kourilsky has offered
specific suggestions drawn from research in learning theory.
6 "'4
Instruction in Economics 55
She has argued that research on brain lateralization demon-
strates that economics instruction must appeal to both sides of
the brain; the left, verbal processing side and the right, spatial
relations side. Thus, teachers should use a "two symbol systems"
approach: for example, a verbal presentation that stimulates proc-
essing in the left hemisphere and graphical presentation stimulat-
ing the right hemisphere. Moreover, recent research supports these
instructional practices:
... the sequence in which the two symbol systems are used is important.
Specifically, learning is greatly enhanced if the teacher uses a verbal pres-
entation first (perhaps because of its familiarity) and follows it with an
integrative graphic presentation. Although the reverse ordering is also
superior to the use of a single symbol system, it is not as effective as the
sequence in which the verbal presentation came first.""
Clear presentation using the two symbol approach is not
enough, however. Students must be given ample opportunity to
practice the use and application of the material presented. This is
more than "time on task." Kourilsky has argued persuasively that
the practice must be carefully guided and monitored. It must be
targeted on the behavior that fits the instructional objectives. An
example she provides is especially instructive. Suppose students
are expected to be able to convert a demand schedule (a list of
pairs, each pair giving a price and a quantity demanded at that
price) into a demand graph (the familiar two-dimensional graph
with price on the vertical axis and quantity on the horizontal axis).
In this situation the teacher must focus practice time on the task
to be mastered, converting the schedule to the graph, and monitor
student responses to see that they are correct.
Kourilsky has also considered intellectual development in re-
lation to specific economics content to be learned to form some
careful suggestions on what content can be learned by students
at various stages of development. All of her suggestions cannot be
recounted here. But a quick example might stimulate readers to
investigate her ideas more thoroughly. She has noted that at the
poperational stage of development (familiar to educators as one
of Piaget's developmental stages), children have certain capabili-
ties and limitations:
(They] arc still not capable of sustained, systematic thought. In the context
of economics, children at this stage can understand that demand how
much people would be willing to buy at various prices can be shown
through a demand curve (that is, they can basically interpret a demand
curve), but they would not be able to actually construct an entire demand
schedule or convert a demand schedule into a graph.'6
56 Economic Education for Citizenship
Much more of this kind of translation of theory into specific rec-
ommendations (which can then be tested) is needed.
In sum, there is a growing research literature on specific meth-
odologies for teaching economics. But, at present, research in
learning theory provides most of the guidance on model instruc-
tional practice. This research indicates that teachers must conceive
of learning in economics as part of the students' cognitive network
into which students must integrate new learning. Instruction should
be organized to stimulate both hemispheres of the brain and, per-
haps, sequenced with verbal presentations first. The kind of con-
cepts being taught are important. Relational concepts, for example,
require more thoroughness and context. Activities must allow for
students to practice specific, targeted behaviors that are appro-
priate to the child's developmental level.
Examples of Effective Instruction
There are probably dozens of teaching ideas that economics
teachers have found to "work" with their students. The evidence
supl.orting the success of these methods is anecdotal, at best, base
as it is on experience and the "feel" of how things are going in
class. To the thoughtful and carefully researched suggestions of
Armento and Kourilsky, I will add some specific suggestions that
have no other empirical base than "they work for me." Out of the
many possible candidates, I have selected three that illustrate more
general prescriptions.
The first specific technique is to introduce supply and demand
graphs by showing them first as bar graphs. More generally, this
illustrates the principle of proceeding from the familiar to the
unfamiliar. Bar graphs are the most familiar form of graph to almost
everyone. Students begin constructing them in the primary grades.
Each bar extends from the vertical (price) axis out over the hor-
izontal (quantity) axis to the appropriate quantity on the demand
(or supply) schedule (Figure 2). Many audiences (junior high
school and high school students and teachers) with whom I have
worked are able to interpret supply and demand graphs depicted
as bar graphs in the same space (both graphs together) virtually
on sight. They can spot the market clearing price (equilibrium
price), where one demand bar is of equal length to a supply bar
(Figure 3). They often can quickly grasp the notion of shortages
or surpluses that will exist at prices other than the equilibrium
price because they can see that one bar is longer than the other
at that price. 6
Instruction in Economics 57
When students construct their own demand graphs from
schedules, have them begin by doing so with bar graphs. Later,
point out that we can as easily use just the end points of the bar
graph. Students then practice constructing demand graphs both
ways, as bars arid as end points. Still later, the dots of the end
points are connected to become the traditional demand (or sup-
ply) graph. By constantly reminding students to keep the bar graph
image in mind, they have a familiar touchstone if they ever get
confused. It works for me!
A second general principle is the importance of making eco-
nomics belong to the real world. A specific technique is the use
of simulations, in this case "The Big Apple."" My experience is
that many economics students believe that much of what they
study is academic theory that exists primarily in textbooks, not in
the real wo.ld. For instance, the intersection of supply and demand
curves produces a nice market clearing price on the blackboard,
but the students tend to view it as an academic exercise, because
Figure 2
Demand Schedule As Bar Graph
Price
in S
12 PQ1) QS
2600 200
10 ,.. 4500 300
8400 400
6
6--. 300 5008
410 200 600
212 100 700
111$111
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Quantity per Week
,_
6?
58 Economic Education for Citizenship
Figure 3
Demand and Supply Schedules as Bar Graphs
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Quantity per Week
QD denoted by
QS denoted by
-
the curves are not directly observable to them in the real world.
Hence the curves are not "real."
But, of course, economists know the curves are real. The "Big
Apple" can prove it to the students. In this exciting simulation
students buy and sell apples. The teacher records the transaction
price for each exchange. Soon the preponderance of transactions
begins to pile up around a very narrow range of prices. The longer
the game proceeds, the more the transactions concentrate about
a single price. The students are shown the data and asked to ac-
count for this result. Eventually the teacher reveals a graph that
displays the implicit supply and demand curves that are built into
the activity. Without fail, the intersection of the supply and demand
graphs is at the price where most of the transactions took place.
In this way students see how unobserved supply and demand
curves produce real and observable results.
Finally, I have had some success with using flow diagrams to
illustrate countervailing economic forces. This has been especially
6 6
Instruction in Economics 59
true in teaching about macroeconomic policy where a particular
policy may produce causal chains resulting in conflicting results
or where there is a conflict in economic theory.
Here is a greatly simplified example for purposes of illustra-
tion. Expansion of the money supply may (begin one chain of
reasoning) reduce interest rates which will stimulate investment
spending by businesses on plant and equipment. It will promote
greater consumer spending on items where interest rates are an
impot 'ant consideration, such as automobiles. These effects will
also promote greater employment. In other words, the policy pro-
motes an economic expansion. Each of these events is depicted
on a diagram with arrows showing the flow of causality. Students
hcli; to develop another reasoning chain that also begins with
expansion of the money supply. But this monetary expansion pro-
duces inflation. Inflation drives up interest rates, resulting in the
opposite of all cif the results just described. However, (another
chain leading from inflation) producers and consumers, wise to
the workings of the economic world, expect the inflation increase
to occur as soon as the monetary expazv ion policy becomes ev-
ident. They know that this means greater inflation in the future,
so they rush out to buy now before price and interest rates rise
even further.
The point is that students c :n use the conflicting chains to
isolate disagreements in economic theory, to develop hypotheses
to test, and to compare countervailing forces. Flow diagrams make
it clear that sometimes the size and strength of reactions (how
"heavy" the arrows) may determine the outcome as one reaction
swamps a reaction in the opposite direction. This example rep-
resents an application of both Kourilsky's "two symbol" approach
and Armento's focus on the unique problems in teaching relational
concepts.
These three techniques and the more general principles they
represent should make a useful addition to the "tool kits" of eco-
nomics teachers when they are presenting specific economics con-
tent. Combined with an instructional model that centers on teaching
students to solve problems and careful attention to learning theory,
effective strategies can greatly enhance instruction and student
learning
Current Instructional Practices
This section presents a picture of what teachers are doing.
For purposes of analysis instruction in economics can be divided
60 Economic Education for Citizenship
into two parts: what teachers teach and how they teach it. There
is some direct research evidence on the first, but almost nothing
on the second. However, there are other indicators from the re-
search that help inform us about instructional practices. For in-
stance, knowing something about what teachers say are the
purposes of economic education may lead to some inferences
about both what is taught and how. Because most of the evidence
is about secondary teachers, this section concentrates on practices
in junior and senior high school.
The analysis begins by examining whether teachers are fo-
cusing instruction on using economics to reach reasoned conclu-
sions about social problems; that is, on economic education for
citizenship. Here the evidence is somewhat contradictory. Teach-
ers seem to believe that problem solving and decision making
should be central. The Yankelovich, Skelly and White survey asked
secondary teachers what they thought were the major goals of
economics instruction. Ninety percent responded that preparing
"students to make intelligent decisions" is a "very important" goal.
The second most frequent response was helping students "to
understand the current problems facing the country" (66% Ps
Furthermore, when asked about what "aspects of economics" they
were teaching, 63% of the respondents specifically mentioned
"decision making" and 75% mentioned current economic issues.'`'
However, this evidence is far from conclusive. Teachers might
not know how to implement instruction about decision making,
even though they regard it as an important goal. What they actually
focus on in class might be the learning of content despite what
they say they are or should be doing. They may regard the learning
of content as more important to economic decision making than
the learning of the economic reasoning process. Moreover, while
90% said making decisions was a very important goal, only two-
thirds mentioned that they taught decision making explicitly. There
is no evidence from the survey on the emphasis on decision making
by these teachers. One wonders what sort of decision making they
an. teaching when only one-third include teaching about oppor-
tunity cost and only one-quarter say that they teach about trade-
offs, two essential elements in economic reasoning."
That so many include teaching about economic issues is not
decisive either. It is crucial to consider how teachers are pre-
senting these issues. If students are not carefully consirlering the
issues, examining possible policy alternatives, applying concepts
and data; and reaching conclusions, then the fact that some class
68
Instruction in Economics 61
time is devoted to economic issues is hardly evidence of empha-
sizing problem solving and decision making. After all, a teacher
can lecture about the causes of inflation without engaging students
in any active reasoning about what should be done about inflation,
if anything.
The evidence from the 1977 NSF studies shows that instruc-
tion is primarily the more traditional, content-oriented variety.
These studies led some social studies educix.ors to conclude that
(1) the dominant instructional pattern is teacher reliance on class-
room recitation and lectures as a way to transmit information to
students; and (2) the dominant instructional tool is the textbook,
with nearly a majority of the classes relying on it as the sole source
of infoi*.iation.2' While there is little specific information on the
instructional practices in economics classes as distinct from others,
there is also little reason to suppose till.' these teachers radically
alter their basic teaching approach when moving from U.S. history
to econcalics.
Finally, to the extent that some teachers are indeed teaching
decision malting, it migN not be about economic issu s or involve
the economic reasoning model discussed earlier. I strongly suspect
that much of the decision making teachers referred to is in the
context of "personal" economics or "consumer education." Recall
that 66% of the teachers included instruction on economic issues.
But 65 %, virtually as many, felt that it was equally important to
"teach students practical skills that they need in everyday lives,
such as balancing a checkbook, using credit cards, how to shop
wisely, etc." In my view, much of this is not economics at all, for
instance learning to ' -' ince a checkbook. Wise shopping might
involve decision maiung, but it might include very little about
economic reasoning . While such consumer life skills might be
useful, they are not what is needed for more effective citizenship.
Furthermore, 34% of those surveyed said that they ' primarily
stress" this "practical 'how-to' economics" in their economics in-
struction. This is more than twice as many as the number who
claim to stress "theoretical economics... that is, principles, con-
cepts, and systems," the very principles and concepts needed to
analyze economic issues.22
That at least some areas of economic content are not taught,
or at least not emphasized, is clear from the research data. As noted
in the previous chapter, student test scores reflect much less
knowledge of macroeconomics and international trade than of
microeconomics. Indeed, the Ya.haelovich, Skelly and White survey
62 Economic Education for Citizenship
shows that international economics is one of the least taught areas
in the discipline and, as previously notea, that macroeconomics
is one of the areas that present teachers with the most difficulty.21
Yet these are areas of economics that are closely related to some
of the most significant issues about which citizens must decide.
The sections on model economics instruction presented some
suggestions on specific techniques for teaching economics con-
tent. Are teachers using such techniq Les in the classroom? Unfor-
tunately, no one knows. There is very little research that examines
economics instruction at that level of specificity.
However, a very tentative conclusion that such techniques
are not used very much can be inferred from two indicators, as-
suming that social studies teachers do not alter their behavior
much when switching from history class to economics (or in-
cluding much economics in history). First, as previously noted,
much social studies teaching is traditional, with a heavy emphasis
on lecture. A few of the techniques presented earlier can be in-
corporated into lecture, for instance occasional use of Kourilsky's
two symbol approach. However, others are not as easily congruent
with what is regarded as typical in social studies classes. It is less
likely that traditional social studies classes will provide much op-
portunity for students to review in their own words previous
-ept learning, as Armento suggests, or to practice responses,
as Kourilsky suggests.
Second, some of the model instruction requires the use of
outside materials for resources. Consistent use of the two symbol
approach would certainly necessitate the use of special audio-
visual materials. Armento's suggestions point to the use of study
guides and other resources. The use of simulations was mentioned
previously. Surely, effective teaching of economics content will
draw he ily on much more than lecture and the textbook.
Unfortunately, as noted earliet, many teachers rely on the
textbook of the tingle class resource. Evidence from the Yanke-
lovich, Ske' and White survey provides further evidence. Only
34% of thot c surveyed could be classified as "heavy users" of
economics "teaching aids," defined as having used five or more
supplemental resources. A plurality (43 %) were light users and
an astonishing (at least to me) 23% were "nonusers."2'
In sum, I conclude that most economics teachers are not
teaching students to reason using economic: and that content is
much more the focus of economics instruction than is process.
Furthermore, it seems clear that "practical" economics, including
Instruction in Economics 63
some content that is not economics at all, is stressed more heavily
than basic economic principles. There are some areas of economics
that are especially underemphasized, including macroeconomics
and international economics. Finally, on the basis of scant evi-
dence, I conclude (tentatively) that teachers are probably not
using some of the best available techniques for teaching economics
content. All of this suggests that current instructional practices are
probably not effectively developing economic education for citi-
zenship.
Summary
This chapter presents a model of economics instruction that
centers on efonomic reasoning for effective citizenship. The model
contains important implications for skill development and implies
that instruction should emphasize defining, analyzing, and solving
economic problems. The model is considered in the context of
the infusion approach, the high school economics course, and at
other grade levels. Research indicates that the model can be used
at all grade levels, provided that it is taught with developmentally
appropriate techniques and focuses on problems at the develop-
mental level of the students. It is suggested that economic edu-
cation for citizenship, as defined in the first chapter, emphasizes
both content and process and that it falls within the social studies
education tradition known as social studies as social science.
The chapter contains a number of suggestions on teaching
economics content drawn from research on learning theory, es-
pecially the work bf Armento and Kourilsky. It also includes teach-
ing practices based on personal experiences. A survey ^f the
research on current instructional practices casts doubt as to whether
teachers are focusing on economic reasoning and using the best
available teaching techniques. This suggests that teaching at pres-
er t is not generally enhancing economic education for effective
citizenship.
Notes
Fiiillip Saunders, G.. Bach, James Calderwood, and W. Lee Hansen, A
Framework for Teaching the Basic Concepts (New York. Joint Council on Eco-
nomic Education, 1984), 5.6.
'Ibid., 60.
' Marilyn L. Kourilsky, "Children's Learning of Economics: The Imperative
and the Hurdles," in "Developing Economic Literacy," edited by Steven L. Miller
Theory into PractirP 26 (Summer 1987) 198.
64 Economic Education for Citizenship
1Beverly J. Armento, "Ideas for Teaching Economics Derived from Learning
Theory," in "Developing Economic Literacy," edited by Steven L Miller, Theory
into Practice 26 (Summer 1987): 180-181.
5Marilyn L Kourilsky, Mini-Society: Experiencing Real-World Economics
in the Elementary Classroom (Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley, 1983), 15-16.
6 Beverly J. Armento, "Ideas for Teaching Economics Derived from Learning
Theory," 181.
Ibid , 181.
James E. Davis, Teaching Economics to Young Adolescents: A Research-
Based Rationale, (S9n Francisco: Foundation for Teaching Economics, 1987), 57.
9 Ibid., 61.
1° Ibid., 65-66.
" Most of the specific suggestions are found in Beverly J. Armento, "Ideas
for Teaching Economics Derived from Learning Theory," and Marilyn L Kourilsky,
"Children's Learning of Economics: The Imperative and the Hurdles." Footnotes
are given for all direct quotations. Other references for Armento and Kourilsky
are from these two articles, but specific pages are not cited because my summary
usually combines material from several places in their articles. Interested readers
should consult the original sources for a far richer, more extensive presentation.
12 Marilyn L Kourilsky, "Children's Learning of Economics: The Imperative
and the Hurdles," 200.
" Beverly J. Armento, "Ideas for Teaching Economics Derived from Learning
Theory," 180.
" Marilyn L Kourilsky, "Children's Learning of Economics: The Imperative
and the Hurdles," 198.
"Marilyn Kourilsky and M.C. Wittrock, "Verbal and Imaginal Strategies in
Teaching Economics," paper presented at the 1986 AERA sessions cited in Kour-
ilsky, "Children's Learning of Fconomics: The Imperative and the Hurdles."
16 Marilyn L. Kourilsky, "Children's Learning of Economics: The Imperative
and the Hurdles," 201.
"James F. Niss, Judith Staley Brenneke., and John E. Clow, Strategies for
Teaching Economics: Basic ausiness and Consumer Education (Secondary),
(New York: Joint Council Gil Economic Education, 1979).
1t1 Yankelovich, Skelly and White, Inc. National Survey of Economic Edu-
cation 1981 (Phillips Petroleum Co., 1981), 55. The answers sum to more than
100% because respondents were allowed to offer multiple goals.
19 Ibid., 58.
2° Ibid., 59.
21 James P. Shaver, 0 L Davis, and Suzanne W. Helburn, "The Status of Social
Studies Education: Impressions from Three N.S.F. Studies," Social Education 43
(February 1979). The original NSF studies coma Interesting data that led to
the conclusions of Shaver, Davis, and Helburn For example. the survey data on
the frequency of use of various instructional techniques are instructive See Iris
R. Weiss, Report of the 1977 National Survey of Science, Mathematics, and
Social Studies Education (Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Insti-
tute, 1978), 101-109.
Yankelovich, Skelly and White, Inc National Survey of Economic Edu-
cation 1981, 55 and 53.
2' Ibid., 59
2' Ibid , 76.
CHAPTER 1\7
Instructional Materials for
Economic Literacy
Instructional materials are important in teaching most sub-
jects, but they are even more crucial in the teaching of economics.
Unlike some subjects where the teacher can be expected to have
a reasonable academic background in the subject, economics is
often presented by teachers with very little training in the disci-
pline. Many, perhaps most, elementary teachers have never had a
course in economics, and secondary economics teachers are fre-
quently social studies teachers with their major training in history,
political science, geography, or one of the other disciplines. Thus,
they can be expected to rely more heavily on their textbooks and
other materials. There is also the added burden of identifying and
promoting the use of instructional aids that promote the reasoning
process so crucial to effective economic education for citizenship.
These considerations justify especially careful scrutiny of econom-
ics materials.
This chapter presents a general assessment of economics class-
room resources, including my judgment on areas of strength and
weakness, evaluative comments on some of the more important
materials, and suggestions on some materials that deserve wider
use. The chapter includes an examination of textbooks because,
as shown in the previous chapter, textbooks dominate classroom
instruction and are nearly always the major classroom resource.
However, the first section discusses the assessment of materials
more generally. Educators sometimes review materials themselves,
but are often consumers of evaluations by others. In either case,
it is important to consider what factors strengthen or weaken
materials evaluations.
Assessing Materials Reviews
Reviewing economics materials is an essential, but difficult
task. The lack of economics background of many teachers suggests
70'-
66 Economic Education for Citizenship
that they may need to rely heavily on outside reviews, especially
regarding the content of texts and other materials. Moreover, be-
cause of the controversial nature of economic issues, there is even
more cause for caution in selection and use. The critique of tra-
ditional economic education presented in Chapter II adds to the
controversy. As a guide to consumers of reviews, this section pre-
sents suggestions about how economics materials should be as-
sessed and part of the framework used in the assessment of
classroom materials presented later in this chapter. Most of this
section concentrates on content, the area where educators are
most likely to need guidance. However, the latter part of this
section discusses other elements of a good materials review.
Regarding the evaluation of content, what should a good re-
view include and avoid? An example might help illustrate the
pitfalls and, by implication, the information that should be pro-
vided. Hucksters in the Classroom: A Review of Industry Propa-
ganda in Schools' is used as an example, because it illustrates
some of the more important errors that reviewers of economics
materials should avoid and that consumers of reviews should watch
for. First and most important, Hucksters never actually lists its
evaluative criteria.2 There are dozens of criteria of varying impor-
tance that might be applied to textbooks or any other materials.
Some people might not agree with the criteria selected or the
importance given to some over others. They may cite other criteria
that were omitted or disagree with the analysis presented. But it
remains essential to specify the ground on which any review is to
be conducted. Without clearly articulated criteria, a review is cer-
tainly less valuable, since the reader is unable to gauge easily
whether the comments are germane tc, his or her situation. Worse,
the review may be biased and inconsistent, yielding incorrect con-
clusions based on sloppy analysis or concern with areas unrelated
to assessing the materials.
For instance, the absence of clear criteria in Hucksters results
in a lack of focus on assessing industry-sponsored materials, which
were the object of the review. Large sections of the book are
devoted to all sorts of extraneous concerns that Harty nonetheless
seems to imply were significant to the evaluation of the materials.'
Harty devotes a good bit of copy to the apparent self-interest of
some of the companies or business groups in developing and pro-
viding materials; about one-third of the text in the chapter on
economic education materials deals with business' motives.' But
Instructional Materials for Eccnomic Literacy 67
this cannot substitute for analysis of the materials, although in
places Harty seems to think that damning the source is sufficient.'
The point is that a review based on criteria is essential for both
the reviewer and the reader if the assessment is to stay on target.
Criteria also need to be clearly defined, especially when judg-
ing bias. Bias will be discussed more completely later. For now it
is enough to note that bias implies systematic distortion to promote
a particular view. Thus, inaccuracy or incompleteness are neces-
sary but not sufficient conditions for determining bias. And they
are important whether bias is being charged or not. It is apparent
that Harty has used these criteria, but unclear what she means by
them. As a result, the two criteria are consistently confused and
inconsistently applied.
In places, accurate content is criticized. Consider, for instance,
the following statements about one industry booklet on solid wastes:
The opportunity for profit in resource recovery is mentioned as the
optimistic motive for change: "Recycling, which is one solution to the solid
waste problem, will occur only when economic conditions justify it.... If
there appears to be opportunity for profit, solid waste recovery will become
a viable business ..." (Harty's quotation of the booklet.) Nowhere are
students informed that pollution control is already profitable for many firms,
such as 3M Corporation, or that values of public health and aesthetics
should be sufficient motive for action!.
Harty believes this passage to be biased, b'it on what grounds?
The passage is not inaccurate. That it does not promote her pre-
ferred values cannot seriously be construed as omission of im-
portant content. It is not clear that 3M's efforts are solid waste
recycling, and even if they are, it proves the booklet's point. Either
way it does not demonstrate inaccuracy or incompleteness. Thus,
lack of precision in defining criteria can cause analysis to be in-
consistent."
This is especially true in assessing whether materials or text-
books provide sufficient breadth and depth on a subject. Here
reviewers and consumers of reviews must keep in mind the in-
tended audience and purpose and the type of materials under
review. Once again Hucksters provides excellent examples of what
not to do.
Throughout Harty's analysis she points out what materials do
not cover as alleged evidence of bias due to incompleteness. Gen-
erally, this is because she paid no attention to a priori standards
such as those mentioned above. This means that she can give a
poor eva uation to anything she chooses since it is impossible for
anything co cover everything."
75
68 Economic Education for Citizenship
However, in one section, Hucksters is very clear about what
should be included. A "balanced economics curriculum," in ad-
dition to covering the "classical" economic system, should cover
"alternatives" including "the reasons for g.wernment intervention
job creation, reduction of pollution, health care services, hous-
ing, transportation, and welfare." It should cover how "today's
market differs from the classical system," including, "economic
concentration, oligopolies, market entry barriers, unions, large scale
entities like multinational corporations." It should include "defects
and failings in today's market system," such as "occupational dis-
ease and injury, collusion and price fixing, extensive non-inform-
ative or deceptive advertising, and non-essential product
differentiation." It should also treat "corporate demands of gov-
ernment subsidies or regulations which shield them from market
competition," and "alternative forms of economic organization
such as cooperatives, federal chartering and worker ownership."9
Harty proceeds to cite instances where mat( rials fail to cover these
topics.This is disingenuous since these criteria are for an entire
curri -ulum. No single piece of material, or film series, or textbook
for that matter, is going to meet these demands. The failure of
Hucksters to list reasonable content criteria that can be applied
to individual resources leads to an evaluation that is essentially
without value to users of industry-sponsored materials. A film from
whatever source that teaches students the theory of how com-
r etitive markets work, even if excellent, would fail on these criteria
as dismally as the worst propaganda because one film cannot
teach everything!
To summarize, consum2rs of reviews should expect dearly
stated and defined criteria. The criteria should include accuracy
and completener However, these criteria should be applied with
the purpose and intended audience in mind. Supplemental mate-
rials for elementary students cannot be expected to cover as much
content as textbooks for college students. The demands for thor-
oughness of coverage must be reasonable given the context in
which rite materials will be used.
A good example of a review that meets these criteria is Final
Report Teaching Economics to Young Adolescents: Teacher
Recommended Print Materials, sponsored by the Foundation for
Teaching Economics (FTE).'" This review of twenty-seven text-
books and supplemental print materials employed several teachers
and economists as reviewers as a guard against reviewer bias. It
76
Instructional Materials for Economic Literacy 69
was carefully constructed using fifteen well-defined, specific cri-
teria covering four broad categories: product characteristics, eco-
nomic content, middle school focus, and pedagogy.
Several of the aspects of the FTE study are especially inform-
ative for consumers of reviews. First, the category of "middle school
focus" takes into account the audience with whom the materials
are to be used. A complete review considers the appropriateness
of the content as well as its accuracy and completeness. As noted
earlier, failure to do this can imperil the value of the review.
Second, the study's "pedagogy" category represents an important
set of criteria too often overlooked by reviewers. These criteria
remind educators of the importance of using materials that en-
hance sound instructional techniques.
Third, and most significant for assessing economics materials
in the context of citizenship, the FTE study emphasizes reasoning.
Indeed, two of the fifteen criteria relate specifically to how well
the materials promote student reasoning. The process of using
economics knowledge to analyze alternatives and reach reasoned
conclusions on issues is critical to economic education for effec-
tive citizenship. Thus, promoting reasoning is an especially appro-
priate criterion.
li is with these considerations in mind that specific reviews
of materials are considered, beginning with social studies text-
books because of the prominence of the infusion approach men-
tioned in previous chapters. Next, textbooks at the middle school
level are examined, followed by reviews of economics texts for
the high school economics course and the implications of those
reviews.
Economics in High School Social Studies
Textbooks
This section reports and comments on the findings of previous
reviews of the economics content of high school social studies
textbooks, specifically texts used in sociology, world history, U.S.
history, and government courses. The end of this section will
suggest implications of these reviews for economic education for
citizenship. Throughout these reviews, the primary criteria are
completeness and accuracy of economics content, which are de-
fined in this way: Does the subject treated in the text have im-
portant economic dimensions that are not covered? Or could the
explanation of the event be significantly enhanced by including
Pt/ fr,f
70 Economic Education for Citizenship
economics? If the answer to either of these questions is "yes," then
the failure to include economics in the textbook explanation is a
significant omission. Are there significant errors of fact or theory
in the economic analysis that is included? If so, then the text is
guilty of inaccuracy. The reviews cited in this section apply these
criteria satisfactorily.
In general, past reviews of the ecoJmics content of social
studies textbooks have been little short of scathing. Reviewers
have found textbooks to be guilty of both omitting significant
economics content and presenting errors of economic fact and
theory." However, the most recent comprehensive reviews of
many of the major types of social studies textbooks are now a
decade old. The Foundation for Research in Economics and Edu-
cation commissioned several economists to review the economics
content in sociology, world history, U.S. history, and American
government textbooks. The reviewers selected several "leading"
texts in each subject area for review. The 1977 reports to the
Foundation were summarized by Robert S. Main.'2 Because the
findings are significant, some of Main's conclusions wi!! be sum-
marized, even though the studies are dated (As will be shown
shortly, there is little reason to believe that the substance of the
conclusions has changed niuch). Also, Main has produced a useful
synthesis of the studies by pointing out classes of errors common
to the texts from the four subjects areas.
Main lists six areas in which virtually all social studies text-
books (at least those reviewed) make serious mistakes. He presents
these under the general heading of "Market Processes and Gov-
ernment Interferences." Figure 4 lists each major area, the specific
examples of each cited by Main, and a capsule summary of the
objections lodged by the reviewing economists.
This summary does not include the rich details in Main's
report or the even richer analysis of the originals. But it does show
some important areas where textbooks make fundamental errors
that teachers shout be aware of and that future reviewers should
look for. Some errors appear to be relatively innocuous, the misuse
of the term and concept "surplus," for instance. But Main shows
that the way this idea is presented reverses the causation under-
lying trade and expands into other more serious misconceptions.'4
A more general problem, perhaps the reason that there are
so many fundamental errors in the texts, is the lack of any explicit
economic theory to form an analytical framework to use in pre-
senting these events. As Main points out, this leads to implicit
78
Instructional Materials for Economic Literacy 71
Figure 4
Summary of Textbook Criticism
Category Specifics Summary and Remerks
Labor Markets
Surplus
Mercantilism
wages and
working
conditions
lump of labor
minimum
wage laws
factory laws
and unions
agriculture
imperialism
early
mercantilism
In general the texts do not use any
market analysis to tackle issues relating to
labor.
The texts generally state that workers did
not benefit from the industrial revolution
and the rise. of capitalism.
This fallacy presumes that there is only a
given amount of work to be done. Hence,
innovation creates unemployment.
The texts fail to recognize that minimum
wage laws help some workers, but harm
others
The texts erroneously credit unions for
the higher wages received by all workers
and do not mention reduced employment.
Technically, a surplus is the unsold
quantity at a particular price. lie casual
use of the term in the texts leads to
sloppy am.ysis.
"Surplus" incorrectly refers to that which
is left after taking what one needs. This
leads to misunderstanding specialization,
causes of trade, and voluntary exchange.
The fundamental confusion over surplus
leads to a misunderstanding of trade and
uncritical acceptance of notions of
imperialism.
The texts are not precise enough about
the general concept of mercantilism, and
so miss many chances to use it in other
contexts.
Texts failed to point out thzt mercantilism
restricts trade to benefit favored groups.
70
72 Economic Education for Citizenship
Competition
and Monopoly
Causes of the
Great
Depression
Capitalism,
Socialism and
laissezFaire
tariffs in U.S.
history
regulatory
agencies
licensing
monopolizing
farming
monopoly
income
distribution
competition
definitions
Texts generally fail to note the costs of
restrictions on trade and treat tariffs as a
political issue.
Texts do not note the mercantilist effect
of regulatory agencies.
The texts ignore the costs of licensing in
terms of less competition and higher
prices.
The texts give too much credit to
business ability to create monopolies and
too little to the government.
The texts ignore the evidence pointing
toward the ineffectiveness of cartels and
fail to note the impact of regulations in
preserving mitcompetitive markets.
In farming, unlike the industrial sectors,
the texts uncritically favor collusion, with
the help of the government.
The texts cite the wrong causes and miss
the right ones.
Business monopoly power is erroneously
cited as a cause of the Great Depression.
This is a second "structural" problem
cited in error by the texts as a cause.
Competition among farmers resulting in
low farm income is erroneously cited as a
cause.
Definitions fo these provided by the texts
are generally unsatisfactory
One example is the focus on ownership of
the means of production as a major
distinguishing characteristic
S u
Instructional Materials for Economic Literacy 73
theories used on an ad hoc basis. "The implicit theorizing ... tends
to be ad hoc. Since the authors are not constrained to make the
theories lying behind their assertions consistent with one another,
there are cases where authors propound inconsistent theories."'4
Main also suggests that the failure to separate the positive and
normative aspects of economic issues and events is another source
of difficulty.ts It is clear that, for whatever reasons, social studies
textbooks (at least those available at the end of the 1970s) are
poor instructional tools for the teaching of economics.
Have textbook writers improved the quality and quantity of
the economics content of textbooks since then? Unfortunately
there have been no further comprehensive reviews of social stud-
ies texts in most of the major social studies subjects since those
cited in 1977. However, in 1983 Stephen Rose and I published an
examination of the economics treatment of the Great Depression
in sixteen U.S. history textbooks and found nothing to ndicate the
quality of economics content had improved since the Saft review
of 1977.16
Some of the specific analyses and conclusions of that review
are instructive, because the Great Depression is the major eco-
nomic event in U.S. history texts. It receives more copy than other
eras where economic considerations were predominant. Also, be-
cause it has been heavily investigated by economists, there is much
scholarly research and information available about the Great
Depression. Thus, it serves as a good litmus test for textbooks. If
a text author fails to have the economics of this event correct, it
seems unlikely that he or she will have handled other topics ad-
equately. For these reasons, the findings of this study are briefly
reviewed.
The history texts reviewed include three kinds of errors. First,
they fail to recognize the significance of the timing of events during
the Great Depression. For example, the texts leave the impression
that the stock market crashed one day and that the society was in
the midst of the depression virtually the next. But it is precisely
because this depression lasted so long that economists' research
has focused on events that occurred as the depression unfolded.
The failure of the texts to disaggregate the depression into
its parts 1 ads to a second error. The texts label as causes many
factors that have been discarded by economic research or that
were, at most, either an initial cause or minor contributing cause
of the recession. The former includes such hackneyed ideas as the
presence of "sick" industries and the inequality of income and
8
74 Economic Education for Citizenship
wealth. The latter includes the stock market crash, which played
a much smaller role than textbooks tend to give it.
Not realizing that the Great Depression developed over nearly
four years also leads the texts' authors to a third error: missing
the real causes of why this recession became great. Economists
have attributed significant causal impact to fiscal and, especially,
monetary policy as the major reasons why a rather common reces-
sion was converted into the Great Depression. Recovery happened
in spite of government policies. Indeed, with even neutral ma-
croeconomic policies, the Great Depression might never have hap-
pened. It is virtually certain that if the Federal Reserve System had
countered the monetary contraction caused by the bank panics,
the depression would have been both far less severe and shorter
lived.This and the other reviews of social studies texts point to a
single, major common error running through these texts. It is the
absence of any economic theory as a means to organize factors or
analyze events. Without theory, texts can present chronological
descriptions that are misleading or causal analyses that are simply
wrong. Common sense, ad hoc theorizing, and post hoc reasoning
are inadequate substitutes for the carefully developed and empir-
ically tested propositions that comprise economic theory.
The implications of errors in social studies textbooks are sig-
nificant, especially in light of the research cited in previous chap-
ters that shows how dependent social studies teachers are on the
textbook as the major source of knowledge in the classroom. Sim-
ply put, a knowledgeable teacher is the only defense against mis-
information in textbooks. Teachers must know enough economics
to spot errors in the texts and present a correct explanation. They
must also know about alternative sources of information and anal-
ysis, and about other instruc final materials that can be used in
place of the textbook.
These textbooks are not helpful in promoting economic edu-
cation for citizenship. Because they present sloppy, even incorrect
economic analysis, they do not provide good models for stnezents
to follow. Worse, students might learn incorrect generalizations
and causal relationships that will impair their reasoning about
current social issues.
Economics Textbooks for Young Adolescents
Economics is sometimes taught as a discrete course in the
middle or junior high school or in the freshman year of high school.
In^tructional Materials for Economic Literacy 75
Moreover, economics ,,:an be included as a i.laj.,r unit if. other
courses at these grade levels, for instance as one of the diLziplin-!s
cc ..red as part of an introduc_ory survey of thr scient. s
or in a consumer education course. The FTE mentioned
earlier in this chapter has presented a comprehen.ve evaluation
of the textbooks used at these grade levels." The results are of
interest here not only because of the information provided by the
rankings of the texts, but al, because of the soundness of the
study design and the ii.eresting alternative methods used to rank
texts.As noted earlier, the FIT study examined print materials (both
supplemental and textbook) that were used with young adoles-
ceats, students in grades six through nine. The materials were
rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (5 = "excellent") for each of fifteen
criteria grouped in four categories. The data in Figure 5 below are
the results for only the textbooks. Mc books are listed by publisher
based on the ran!, (Rank 1) attained using the average total score
given by each reviewer. The "Scor 1" column shows that average
score (maximum score of 75, 15 criteria times 5 per criterion).
In addition each revieN er was asked to assign an overall rating to
each text en a 1 to 5 scale. The average scores are denoted as
"Score 2" in Table 1 and the ranking resulting from these scores
is found in the "Rank 2" column.
Finally, the study used regression analysis to rank the texts
afte7 "factoring out" the effects of product characteristics. The
Figure 5
Publisher Date Rank 1 1 Rank 2 Score 2 Rank 3
Houghton Mifflin 1986 163B6 53.6 8
New Readers Press 1986 263.47 13.93 7
EMC Corp. 1985 362.60 43.67 6
AddisonWcsley Publishing 1984 462.4 23.8 1
Coronado Publishing Co. 1982 560.08 33.8 4
Globe Book Co. 1983 658.79 63 53 5
Scribner Educational 1984 758.36 83.2 9
Harcourt, Brace, Joymovich 1977 858.36 73.4 2
Allyn and Bacor 1985 955.33 93.07 1 4
Laid law Brothers 1984 10 53.87 11 2.93
D.O.K. Publishers 1982 11 49.67 10 3 07 3
Sc cial Issues Resource Servicz 1983 12 40.13 12 2.2 12
J. Weston Walch 1977 13 39.54 13 2.13 1:
83
76 Economic Education for Citizenship
idea was to determine whether product characteristics, such as
"attractiveness," had influenced the overall evaluation score. By
using the product characteristic scores as predictors of the overall
score, the study determined a ranking of the texts (in fact, of all
the materials reviewed) "free of the influence of product char-
acteristics."'8 The resulting ranking is "Rank 3" in the Figure 5.
By tanking the texts in these three ways, the FTE study pro-
vides much useful information to the consumers of the review.
First, note that the average score on Score 1 is 55.88 out of a
possible 75. This corresponds to an average ranking of 3.73 out
of 5 on each of the 15 etiteria. The average overall evaluation
(Score 2) is 3.26. Thus, the reviewers overall rating is considerably
less than the average of the ratings they gave for the individual
criteria. This tends to show that the reviewers were somewhat
less pleased with the texts than their original ratings might indicate.
Second, there is little discrepancy between the first two rank-
ings, but considerably more with the third. The study reports a
Spearman Rank Order correlation of .89 between the first two
ranks for all of the materials, but .43 for Rank 1 and Rank 3.19 This
discrepancy means that us._ rs interested in all of the criteria might
be guided primarily by the rankings generated by either Score 1
or Score 2. Others might prefer the more heavily substance-based
rankings produced by Score 3.
Another way to analyze the data is simply to rank the texts
in order of the average ranking all three ranking scales. Figure 6
reports these results. It shows that Our Economy: How it Works
from Addison-Wesley emerges as the top-ranked text by placing
in the top four on all three rankings.
Finally, one minor deficiency in the FTE study should be men-
tioned. The absence of raw data on the criteria, for each of the
textbooks makes it impossible for consumers of the review to
construct their own rankings based on the criteria they value. The
study makes clear that its criteria are based on prior research in
economics teaching and learning for students of the target age
group. However, that the criteria were selected in this way does
not mean that all should be weighted equally. Indeed the study's
last ranking is, in part, a reexamination of the data to remove the
"halo effect" of the product characte tics. Thus, if one were to
accept the criteria but choose to apply weights to them, one could
not do so given the information in the report.
Nonetheless, the study represents an excellent model of the
review process, with clear, research-based criteria and important
results. It also :tows that there are at least some acceptable texts
84
Instructional Materials fc -conomic Literacy 77
Figure 6
Texwook Ratings and Rankings
Publisher Average
Runk
Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. 2.33
New Readers Press 3.33
Coronado Publishing Co. 4.00
EMC Corp. 4 33
Houghton Mifflin Publishing Co. 4.67
Globe Book Co. 5.67
Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich 5.67
Scribner Educational Publishers b.00
D.O.K. Publishers 8.00
Allyn and Bacon 10.33
Laid law Brothers 10 33
Social Issues Resource Series 12.00
J. Weston Waich 12.33
available for economics courses or units in the middle school
grades.
Textbooks for the Twelfth Grade Economics
Course
There has been much more attention by economic educators
recently to reviewing high school economics textbooks than to
examining the economics content of other social sttsiies text-
books. Among the detailed reviews are those available from the
Joint Council on Economic Educatior through the National Eco-
nomic Education Database and from the Ohio Council on Eco-
nomic Eaucation.2° Others are the periodic reviews by the New
York and Georgia Councils on Economic Education.2' This section
summarizes the findings of the New York review and uses it to
indicate some important aspects of content reviews. The New York
Review also is used to point out some implications for teaching
economics. The findings of the Georgia Council review are pre-
sented as a comparison of the results of reviews.
The New York review has many strong points, but also a few
significant deficiencies. Among the strengths are its comprehen-
siveness and clarity. Eleven texts suitable for the twelfth grade
were evaluated on four general categories (physical characteris-
85
78 Economic Education fa. Citizenship
tics, features, supplemental materials and aids, and concepts) with
a number of criteria under each category (sec the sample review
in the Appendix). A numerical score, ranging from 0 for "lacking"
to 4 for "excellent," was assigned to rate each text on every cri-
terion The points were summed to yield a total score and divided
by the number of criteria to give an average score per criterion.
In addition, a table displays how well a given text covers each of
twenty-three basic concepts or concept areas gene .ally conform-
ing to those in A Framework for Teaching the Basic Concepts22
(ranging from "stressed" to "omitted entirely") and whether that
concept is correctly used and presented in an unbiased way. Major
comments about the texts by the panel of three reviewers are
provided. Moreover, texts were also reviewed by several econo-
mists for "technical errors and inaccuracies." The composite of
the economists' reviews yielded a separate accuracy score ranging
from 1 ("inaccurate") to 4 ("accurate").
The following figures present information drawn from the
New York review. Figure 7 lists the title, author, publisher, and
copyright date in descending (..-der of total point ranking. The
number at the left provides the key to Figure 8, which lists infor-
mation about each text's rating.
Figure 8 provides some interesting and encouraging infor-
mation about economics textbooks. First, the average overall rating
for the texts is 3.19 on a four-po'nt scale, a pretty good showing
in my view. Second, there are few concepts omitted, presented
inaccurately, or in a biased fashion. Finally, the accuracy rating
(last column) is also reasonably high. However, it is interesting to
note that the text that rated the highest in total points received a
below average mark in accuracy from the economists who re-
viewed the text. Furthermore, the text marked with two concepts
presented in a biased manner (text 5) received the second highest
mark for accuracy.
These seeming contradictions point to both strengths and
weaknesses of the New York review. It is an advantage to have
many criteria ano clear rankings on those criteria. The accuracy
and completeness issues are covered by this review in four ways:
(1) How well are the general categories of concepts covered (e.g.
macroeconomics)? (2) How well are specific concepts covered?
(3) How accurate is the coverage? (4) Are any concepts presented
in a biased manner. Thus, it is possible for a text to receive high
marks for coverage of general concept areas, but receive lower
marks for the accuracy of that coverage. By providing information
86
instructional Materials for Economic Literacy 79
Figure 7
Titles, Authors, Publishers, and Copyright Dates
1. Economics, George Watson, McDougal, Littel & Co., 1986.
2. Economics: Today and Tomorrow, Roger LeRoy Miller, Harper&Row, 1984.
3. The Study of Economics: Principles Concepts and Applications, Turley
Mings, Dushkin, 1987.
4. Economics: Principles and Practices, Gary Clayton and lames Brown, Charles
E. Merrill, '983.
The American Economy: Analysis, Issues and Principles, Roy Sampson and
-a Marienhoff, Houghton Mifflin, 1986.
.,. Ullerstanding Economics, Allen Smith, Random House, 1986.
7. Invitation to Economics, Lawrence Wolken and Janet Glocker, Scott, Fo-
reman, 1985.
8. The American Economic System, Robert F. Smith, Michael Watts and Vivian
Hogan, Laidlaw Bros., 1987.
9. Economics The Science of Cost, Benefit and Choice, J. Holton Wilson and
J.R. Clark, South-Western, 1984.
10. Economics: Institutions and Analysis, Gerson Antell, Amsco Publications,
1985.
11. Essentials of Economics and Free Enterprise. Richard M. Hodgetts and Terry
L Smart, Addison-Wesley, 1987.
Figure 8
Textbook Ratings
Total
Book Points
No ( 100 Max)
Average
Points
(4 max) Concepts
Omitted
Concepts
Presented
Incorrectly
Concept
PreseP-
Biased
Accuracy
Points
(4 max)
190.5 3.62 10 0 2.7
288.5 3.54 0003.2
388 3.52 (1 00 3.7
486.5 3.46 000 3.0
582 3.28 1023.3
678 3.12 0002.9
776 3.04 000 3.0
872.5 2.9 1112.4
972 2.88 0002.7
10 71 2.96 0002.9
11 69 2 76 01 1 2.6
Avg 79.45 3.19 .27 .18 .36 2 95
8 7'
80 Economic Education for Citizenship
on !th, the New York review makes it easier for a consumer to
weigh the relative merits of textbooks.
On the other hand, the New York review format does have a
few weaknesses. It might have been helpful to produce a numeric
rating based on the coverage of specific concepts. The data are
there to construct such a ranking, as has been done in Figure 9
below. This information is especially helpful to those concerned
with depth and breadth of coverage, and perhaps st newhat less
concerned with format and features. As the data show, there are
five texts with a higher ranking than Watson's (text number 1;
average rating 3.23) on this measure; and the one by Mings
(number 3; average rating 3.80) is truly outstanding.
Furthermore, using this information reveals one perplexing
inconsistency in the points assigned in the New York review's last
category of criteria (concepts). The total points were calculated
for both of these texts on this category. For example, examine the
sample review at the end of the chapter. Sum the ratings for the
six items under "Concepts" using 3.5 in place of "4-". The total
for Mings' text is 21, while Watson's text scored 20.5 on the six
criteria in this category, a difference not nearly as great as one
would expect from the dat4 in Figure 9.
Second, the way in which the accuracy rating of the texts was
determined by the economists is troubling The reviewers were
to examine only a subset of the total list of specific concepts (11
of the 23 concepts) and apparently the economists reviewed only
a subset of the possible subset. Moreover, the same concepts were
not reviewed in each text nor was there necessarily the same
number of reviews. Thus, when the sample review in the Appendix
notes that there were six evaluations (second page of the sample
review), tins can be an evaluation of one concept by six different
economists, a review of six concepts by one economist, or any
other combination that sums to six, counting each review of an
individual concept by each reviewer as one "evaivation." Thus,
the accuracy ratings may not be very reliable indicators.
Still the evaluation provides a useful guide containing much-
needed information. Among the more useful results of the trans-
formation of the data into Figure 9 is the indication provided about
the strong and weak areas in most textbooks. Recall from previous
chapters that test data point to specific areas of inadequate student
understanding. Some of these areas are among those :east well
presented according to the New York review. For instance, the
last column of Figure 9 (Group avg.) reports the average score for
88
Instructional Materials for Economic Literacy 81
Figure 9
Textbook Coverage of Concepts
Textbook number 123456
Scarcity 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.67 1.33 2.67
Opportunity cost 3.67 2.67 4.00 2.67 2 00 3.33
Productivity 2.33 2.33 3.00 2.33 4.00 3.33
Economic systems 3.33 3.33 3.67 2.67 2 67 3.67
Economic institutions 3.00 3.33 3.67 3.67 3.00 2.67
Exchange 3.00 3.67 4.00 3.67 4.00 3.33
Microeconomics 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.67 4.00 3.33
Markets 3.67 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.33
Supply and demand 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.67
Competition 3.67 4.00 3.67 4.00 4.00 3.00
Income distribution 3.33 3.00 4.00 3.67 4.00 3.33
Market fz-ures 3.33 2.33 3.00 3.67 3.00 2.67
Role of government 4.00 3.67 3.67 3.33 4.00 4.00
Macroeconomics 3.33 3.00 4.00 3.33 3.67 3.67
GNP 4.00 4.00 4.00 zr 00 3.67 3.67
Aggregate supply/
demand 1.33 3.00 4.00 3.0 ) 3.00 3.00
Unemployment 3.33 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 4.00
Inflation/deflation 3.33 3.33 3.33 4.00 3.00 3.67
Monetary /fiscal policy 3.00 3.00 3.33 3.00 3.00 3.33
International concepts 2.67 3.33 4.00 4.00 3.00 4.00
Comparative advantage 2.00 2.67 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Exchange rat. s 3.33 3.00 4.00 3 33 2.00 3.00
International growth 2.67 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Average 3.23 3.29 3 80 3.46 3.23 3.33
SD
82 Economies Education for Citizenship
Group
Textbook number 78910 11 Avg. avg.
Scarcity 3.00 2.67 3.00 2 00 2 00 2 85 3.0
Opportunity cost 3 67 2.00 3.00 2 00 200 2.82
Productivity 2.00 3.33 3.33 3.00 2.00 2.82
Economic systems 2.33 3.33 3.00 2.00 2.00 2 91
Economic
institutions 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.21
Exchange 3.00 3.33 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.45
Microeconomics 3.00 2.67 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.52 3.5
Market 4.00 3.33 4 00 3.00 3.00 3.67
Supply and demand 4.00 3.33 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.73
Competition 4.00 4.00 3.67 3.60 4.00 3.73
Income distribution 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 3.12
Market failures 3.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 2.91
Role of government 3 67 3.67 3.33 4.00 4.00 3.76
Macroeconomics 3.00 2.67 3.67 2.00 3.00 3.21 3.2
GNP 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.58
Aggregate supply/dem 2.00 2.33 4.00 3.00 2.00 2.79
Unemployment 2.67 3.33 4.00 2 00 2.00 3.30
Inflation/deflation 2.33 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.27
Monetary/fisal
policy 3.33 2.33 3.67 3.00 200 3.00
International
concepts 3.00 2.33 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.21 2.9
Comparative
advantage 3.00 1.00 2.33 3.00 2.00 2.64
Exchange sates 3 Cfu 3.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 2 82
International growth 3.00 2.00 2 33 3.00 2.00 2.82
Average 3.04 2.81 3.36 2.82 2.61 3.18
90
Instructional Materials for Economic Literacy 83
depth of concept presentation for all of the concepts presented
in that concept cluster (e.g., microeconomics) including all of the
textbooks. Note that the lowest score, 2.9 of a possible 4.0 is
obtained for the average of the ratings for the "int -"national" con-
cepts; the highest is "microeconomics" at 3.5. This is generally
what one expects based on student test results. Somewhat sur-
prising is the higher score for "macroeconomics" than for "basic
concepts." However, "basic concepts" includes "opportunity cost"
which is among the specific concepts least understood by students.
Evidently, it is also among those concepts textbooks present least
well. That the areas of poorest student performance correspond
to the areas of weakest text presentation tends to reinforce the
idea that teachers rely heavily on textbooks.
Another indicator of the connection between student test
scores and textbook coverage is found by examining the average
score for each concept individually. This information is presented
in the next to the last column of Figure 9 (Avg.). It is also organized
in order of decreasing rank in Figure 10 on the next page. Assuming
that the ratings in the New York review are about right, the data
serve as a guide to :.yeas where teachers will need special help,
both in teacher training and with supplemental materials. It is clear
that all of the specific concepts in intemational economics are
given comparatively little treatment.23 While microeconomics
seems to fare very well (three of the top four), market failures and
income distribution appear to need some attention. The texts ev-
idently do better with indicators in macroeconomics (inflation,
deflation, GNP) than with policy concepts (monetary and fiscal
policy, and aggregate supply and demand).
This evidence is especially significant when considering eco-
nomic education for citizenship. Notice that in Figure 10 the con-
cepts with below average rankings include most of those on the
list with the most direct connection to policy questions. This
suggests that texts are generally oriented more to content than to
reasoning about issues.
The lack of attention to such basic concepts as scarcity, op-
portunity cost, and productivity is startling. This raises one ques-
tion on which the New York review provides no help: How well
do the texts pull :ht concepts together into an integrated and
meaningful whole? Do they help students understand economic
generalizations? For instance, the texts might present the basic
mechanics of the market ( e.g., supply and demand) without help-
ing students to see that markets allocate resources, the funda-
91
84 Economic Education for Citizenship
Figure 10
Rank Order of Concepts Presentation
Concepts with higher than
average rankings Concepts with lower than
average rankings
Role of government 3.76 Income distribution 3.12
Competition 3.73 Monetary/fiscal policy 3.00
Supply and demand 3.%3 Economic systems 2.91
Markets 3.67 Market failures 2.91
GNP 3.58 Exchange rates 2.88
Microeconomics 3.52 Scarcity 2.85
Exchange 3.45 Opportunity cost 2.82
Unemployment 3.30 International growth 2.82
Inffation/delation 3.27 Productivity 2.82
Economic institutions 3.21 Aggregate supply/demand 2.79
Macroeconomics 3.21 Comparative advantage 2.64
International concepts 3.21
mental reason why markets are of compelling interest. If texts do
less wen with fundamental concepts such as scarcity and oppor-
tunity cost, it is hard to believe that the texts are providing the
structure students need to grasp economics as more than a set of
isolated concepts.
Finally, it is instructive to compare two reviews to see the
degree of consistency. This is somewhat problematic because of
the differences in criteria used. For instance, the Georgia Council
review includes a rating for the appropriateness of the texts in
meeting the 33 objectives in the statewide economics course, a
set of criteria not relevant in New York. Also reviews do not always
include the same books, nor necessarily the same editions.
Nonetheless, Figure 11 presents such a comparison. The ranks
are based on the ratings for treatment of economic concepts, about
which there should be comparatively little disagreement among
reviewers. Column 1 lists the textbooks by author ranked in de-
scending order in the Georgia Council review. The Geof....4 ranking
is in the second column; New York, the third (NR ireans not
reviewed).
Note that the results rr Atch fai:ly closely. Ignoring the Mings
text, which was not reviewed in Georgia, the top three other texts
(on this measure) in t e New York review are among the top four
in the Georgia review. The only discrepancizs appear to be with
books further down the list, and even these are less serious than
9`)
Instructional Materials for Econemic Literacy 85
they appear after adjusting ranks for the different number of books
reviewed. Thus, the reviews, at least on this measure, tend to be
mutually supportive. However, while inspection indicates that the
rankings are similar, there is enough variation to warrant caution
in accepting the results of one review if others are easily obtain-
able.
Figure 11
Textbook Rankings Compared
Author(s) Georgia Rank NY Rank
Smith 14
Watson 26
Wilson/Clark 33
Clayton/Brown 42
Wolken/Glocker 58
Petersen/Lewis 6NR
Antell 79
Smith/Watts/Hogan 810
Clawson 9NR
Olsen/Hailstones 10 NR
Junior Achievement 11 NR
Miller 12 5
Hodgetts/Smart 13 11
Sampson/Marienhoff 14 7
Abramowitz/Atkins/Rogers 15 NR
Mings NR 1
In summary, based on the New York review, economics text-
books are generally doing a pretty good job on several measures.
There are a half dozen texts available that seem to be mere than
adequate. The breadth of coverage is comprehensive. However,
the tee.__ have some areas of weakness in depth of coverage both
in general areas, most notably in international concepts, and in
specific concepts, such as comparative advantage. These weak-
nesses often correlate with poor test results by students on certain
concepts and suggest places where teachers may need additional
training and supplemental resources. The textbooks received rea-
9 7-0 3
86 Economic Education for Citizenship
sonable, if somewhat lower, marks for accuracy. Furthermore, the
reviewers found virtually no evidence of bias in the presentation
of economic concepts. However, their standards of bias and ac-
curacy might not be the same as those of some others, which leads
to the subject to be considered next: Are economics textbooks
biased?
Bias in Economics Textbooks
It might not be necessary to point out that the model of
economic education for citizenship based on reasoned conclusions
is inconsistent with the presence of bias in textbooks. Indeed the
separation of positive and normative economics, the emphasis on
scientific development and testing of economic theory, the careful
application of evidence and analysis to issues, and the explicit use
of admittedly subjective criteria all of these are in some sense
regarded as bulwarks against bias, at least in the positivist tra-
dition of mainstream economics.
Bias in economics textbooks is a serious threat to economic
education for citizenship. The important issue of textbook bias is
examined next.
If there is bias in economics textbooks, it could be any of
four varieties: (1) in presentation of issues or concepts, meaning
the way something is presented; (2) by omission of important
alternative viewpoints or other .naterial; (3) by promotiog un-
founded or debatable conclusions as truth or "reality;" or ( 4) by
systematic, ideological bias that distorts the entire treatment. Ob-
viously, the alternatives are not mutually exclusive; a text could
be guilty of all four. Furthermore, while I have used the L-rm
"ideological" specifically with reference to the last kind of bias,
any of the four might be considered ideological bias depending
upon how one defines "ideology" and "bias." The presence of any
or all of the first three may amount to ideological bias; that is, they
might be evidence of ideological bias. Thus ideological bias may
manifest itself by the presence of all or some of the first three, or
it may simply be present throughout the text.
It is apparent that the definitions of bias .and ideology (as used
in this context) are important. A dictionary definition of bias is:
"preference or inclination that inhibits impartial judgment; prej-
udice."24 Thus, bias is more than incompleteness or inaccuracy. It
is presentation skewed toward some point of view. Prejudice may
favor (or disfavor) a particular conclusion or set of conclusions.
z.,
9
Instructional Materials for Economic Literacy 87
Prejudice becomes ideologica: bias when there is a consistent
pattern of bias that sub orts an identifiable ideology. In this con-
text, an ideology is a complex of assumptions, concepts, and values
that form a systematic viewpoint of economic arrangements.
To summarize the argument so far, a textbook might exhibit
bias without that bias being ideological, for instance by inaccurate
presentation or omission of material that displays a prejudice against
organized labor. A disposition against organized labor, by itself,
does not constitute an ideology. But such a predisposition might
be part of an ideology. A more serious criticism is that ofa pattern
of ideological bias; for example, systematic bias that, without suf-
ficient evidence, supports one kind of economic system as superior
to any alternative.
As noted in Chapter I, Romanish has charged thateconomics
textbooks are ideologically biased.25 His argument drew a sharp
retort from Waistad and Watts to which he replied.26 Some may
feel that this debate sums up the issue or even closes the argument.
However, because Romanish's study remains the major attempt to
indict these texts to date, his charges should be examined. I do
not propose to rehash this debate; but rather, to analyze the ar-
guments somewhat differently.
To begin with, Romanish defines bias: "... where economics
education predisposes pupils to accept one set of values or doc-
trines in preference to another set."27 This definition is acceptable
as long as one conceives of "doctrine" as dogma or beliefs as
opposed to scientific principles. His study, while not explicitly
organized this way, actually contains the four charges of bias that
are listed above. He gives examples of what he considers to be
bias in the way material is presented, omission of other viewpoints,
and presentation of erroneous conclusions. Further, he seems to
argue ideological bias in the two ways noted above: ( 1 ) that the
first three kinds of bits are evidence of systematic ideological bias
in texts; and (2) that mainstream economicsas taught in the United
States is itself an ideology, hence textbooks based on positive
economics are 11^..:-.ed by inherent ideological bias. The last ar-
gument is considered first, followed by the specific charges of bias
and whether they amount to ideological bias.
It is clear that Romanish believes economics to bean ideology.
In ne place he seems A) equate economics with capitalism. Ro-
manish states "Since economics is not a precise science to date,
its assumptions and structures should be held to constantanalysis
and critique. From a theoretical standpoint, the application of crit-
9 5
88 Economic Education for Citizenship
ical analysis in economic education will call into question the
positivist assumptions of modern capitalist thought."2" He includes
a section ("The Nature of Economics") that essentially argues that
economics is an ideology, because it has competing "ideologies,"
lacks worldwide consensus, and is not an "exact science."29
Plainly, economics is not capitalism. The tools of positive
economics have been used often enough to attack capitalism.
Moreover, much of the wok that economists do revolves around
examining "assumptions and structures" of both positive econom-
ics and capitalism. That there are competing economic ideologies
does not make positive economics an ideology any more than
scientific creationism makes biology an ideology. The rest of this
argument simply says that economics, as a science, is relatively
immature. Certainly, there are disputes. The point is that there is
an accepted methodology for testing theory and resolving such
disputes. I believe this has resulted in far more consensus than
Romanish wants to concede.
Romanish claims economics is ideology in another way. He
argues that economics can only be "objective" if it is equally
applicable in all places and times and not influenced by values (i.e.
if it is positivistic).;" In another place he argues that positive eco-
nomics is an ideology, because it supports the "existing order of
things." Further, it "does not address the differences between so-
ci'ty as it is and society as it could be."3' So, by the first argument,
if economics is not "objective" or positive, it is ideological. By the
second, if economics is positivistic, it is ideological. To Romanish,
es.wything is ideological. This is consistent with his citation of
Webster that ideologies "are not disguised descriptions of the
world, but rather real descriptions from a specific viewpoint. The
viewpoint, while real, does not necessarily represent reality but
rather is 'a' reality or one among many."42 Thus, there is no ob-
jective reality, only a variety of realities as seen from different
ideologies.
As pointed out in Chapter II, this particular argument is part
of the ongoing debate between the positivists and to revisionists.
There are two brief points to make. First, one must recognize that
this critique is an indictment of economics, not just high school
textbooks. Second, if the revisionist critique holds, it is unclear
what content ought to be included in economics textbooks. How
inclusive of "other realities' or "competing ideologies" must texts
be to be free of bias? Are there standards that can be used to
separate more legitimate realities from less legitimate ones? It
96
I
Instructional Materials for Economic literacy 89
remains for the revisionists to answer with a clearly articulated
alternative.
As mentioned at the beginning of this section, Romanish makes
another analytically distinct claim of ideological bias: that bias in
the way material is presented, omission of other viewpoints, and
presentation of erroneous conclusions are evidence of systematic
ideological bias. Walstad and Watts have presented a rebuttal to
Romanish. Interested readers can examine the original sources to
form their own opinions. Thus, no further analysis of the debate
is presented here. However, two other important points are made.
First, Walstad and Watts defend texts in general from most
of Romanish's attack by pointing out that the evidence in his cri-
tique is heavily concentrated in two areas of content and on three
of ten textbooks. They also argue that these two areas, lack of
textbook treatment of "right-to-work laws" and textbook evasion
of the "contradiction" between growth and environmental pres-
ervation, are not particularly good test areas for bias, at least as
Romanish construes them. Setting those two areas aside, four of
the ten texts escape without a single critical comment and three
others have only five evidential claims lodged among them.34 This
is hardly evidence of widespread bias (on Romanish's terms) es-
pecially since there is no evidence that Romanish acquired the
major texts in use at the time of the study. Furthermore, two of
the ten were not even high school economics textbooks.34
Second, the New York review cited in the previous section
found little support for charges of bias (according to the reviewers'
criteria). Furthermore, these texts pass the New York review with
flying colors in some of the specific content areas examined by
Romanish, for example treatment of the role of government and
of economic systems. The sample of textbooks in the New York
review is diffeh.nt from the books in Romanish's review, and the
texts are more recent. Maybe other texts would have been found
to be biased, or the publishers have solved the problem since
Romanish's review, or perhaps the reviewers in New York are
simply wrong.
If one denies the positivistic foundations of economics, all
widely-used economics texts in the United States appear to be
inherently biased. However, this is not the mainstream position in
economic education in the United States. In Romanish's rebuttal
to his mainstream critics, he asks:
Is it the position of these professors that the texts are not biased? Or, are
they holding open the option tIrt a more thorough analysis than mine (or
97
90 Economic Education for Citizenship
one more intelligently constructed in their view) would yield a more
convincing case? Is it the findings that are most upsetting, or a preference
for a particular methodology and format? Is it the message or the messenger
that's really at issue for them?"
Walstad and Watts offer this reply:
There are well known reasons for expressing concern about bias in free
enterprise and economic education programs.... int behooves academic
observers from the fields of economics and education to keep a weather
eye on all materials widely used in the nation's schools, especially the ever
present textbook
Other Materials
There has been a welcome increase in supplemental materials
in economics available in the last decade. Among these are the
Master Curriculum Guide Series, at present nine volumes of lesson
materials for teachers from the Joint Council on Economic Edu-
cation; several video series including Trade-offs, Give & Take, Tax
Whys, Free to Choose, The People on Market Street, the two Mocha
films, and the three films starring the famous "Chicken," among
others; microcomputer software such as "Jeans Factory", Income/
Outcomes, and "Marketplace;" standardized tests including the
Test of Economic Literacy, and the Basic Economics Test; simu-
lations like "The Stock Market Game, "OPEST," "The Lig Apple,"
and more.37 Additional materials have recently been released, for
example the Economics USA video series and Economics and
National Security: Supplemental Lessons for the High School
Course. Moreover, new materials are on the way: a new junior
high school test, the Test of Economic Knowledge; a primary grades
video series from the JCEE; and a volume of lesson strategies for
the high school advanced placement economics course. And, of
course, there are many more materials, especially teacher's guides,
available from regional centers for economic education, the Foun-
dation for Teaching Economics, state departments or education,
businesses, the Federal Reserve System, Junior Achievement, and
others. The richness, variety, and overall quality of these supple-
mental materials represents a giant stride forward for economic
education.
As shown in the bibliography of materials presented at the
end of the book, there is no way to deal comprehensively with a
review and evaluation of these materials without writing a separate
book devoted to that purpose. Interested consumers may access
information on many of these materials through the previously
98
Instructional Materials for Economic Literacy 91
mentioned "National Economic Edue..ion Database" computer
link.38 This section will offer comments on the strengths and weak-
nesses of a few of the most important supplemental materials, and
point toward some relatively obscure materials that seem to be
underutilized.
The Trade-Offs (TO) video series is considered first, because
after a decade it remains an outstanding model for future video
materials in economic education. Each of the fifteen programs
carefully develops only a few concepts, thus avoiding the problem
of cranun,ng too much content into too little available time. Fo-
cusing on concepts also allows teachers flexibility in choosing to
use some of the programs while skipping others. Each provides
an open-ended point of departure for additional learning activities.
The programs are usually engaging and humorous, and nearly all
of the segments emphasize decision making in terms of the model
described in Chapter III. Finally, the series has good internal se-
quencing based on a logical unfolding of basic concepts and some
fundamentals of microeconomics. The series has deservedly been
highly praised and widely used.
There are a number of small criticisms that can be raised
about TO, as one might expect given a series that covers as much
ground for such a young audience as this one does (roughly, grades
4-8). Many such criticisms are technical and minor. However, there
are two significant flaws.
First, the strength of TO's focus on concepts also creates an
inherent weakness. As noted earlier in the chapter on curriculum,
emphasizing discrete concepts leaves to the teacher the burden
for tying the conceptual pieces into larger, meaningful blocks, a
burden too many are ill-equipped to handle. However, given the
structure of most curricula in schools and the ease with which
teachers can dip in and out of the series, one can hardly fault the
series designers for making this decision.
Second, the lone attempt in this series to broaden beyond a
concept focus did not fare well. Program #13 is a disaster, and
that is especially unfortunate given its role in the series. Program
#13 is the last of four programs that describe the market basics:
demand (#10), supply (#11), market clearing price ( #12), and
the price system (#13). Thus, program #13 carries the significant
load of showing how markets allocate resources, the major point
of examining the specifics of the market mechanism in the first
place. This is the only program that attempt' :o do more than
convey one or a few concepts; it tries to communicate an especially
99
92 Economic Education for Citizenship
important generalization. However, the production values of this
segment are not up to the level of the rest of the series.
Give & Take can be thought of as the offspring series to TO
for the secondary level (It is advertised for use in grades 8-10, but
can clearly be used in grades 11 and 12 as well). G&T also is
generally a fine series, but of somewhat more uneven quality. Like
TO, the twelve programs in G&T each focus on specific concepts
and many segments use the familiar decision-making model.
The major criticism (beyond the same arguments about the
concept focus) regards the initial orientation of the series as "per-
sonal" or "consumer economics." While economic education shares
much with consumer education, the two are plainly not identical.
They are rather like two overlapping circles in a Venr diagram.
Most of the series concentrates on areas of intersection, but two
of the early programs are of more interest to consumer educators
than to economic educators.
Two programs am especially noteworthy: #5 and #12. Not
only are these programs uncommonly well acted and written, but
they also treat significant areas of economics that are not covered
explicitly in other video products for pre-college classes. By deal-
ing with derived demand, #5 begins to show students the rela-
tionship of one market with another. Program #12 is one of the
few video programs that introduces students to a market structure
other than perfect competition.
As mentioned above, there are many other series and indi-
vidual films or tape programs, so many that they cannot all be
examined here. However, before moving on to print materials,
two films that are particularly noteworthy should be mentioned.
The third film in Milton Friedman's Free to Choose series is one
that U.S. history teachers should know about. It is the only film of
which I am aware that presents the importance of Federal Reserve
policy during the Great Depression. Other programs in this series
might be of interest to high school economics teachers, but with
several caveats. First, this series was not designed as an instruc-
tional classroom tool. It was presented to the general public over
PBS as the video summary of the book by the same name. Second,
Friedman liberally mixes positive economics with his particular
political philosophy. This raises the need for some balance. Third,
some teachers probably do not know that nine of the ten programs
in the series have an accompanying half-hour film of Friedman
discussing the first half-hour program with a group of allies and
1 0 u
Instructional Materials for Economic literacy 93
critics. In some instances the discussion film is as instructive as
the first half-hour, and may provide some of the necessary balance.
Another favorite program of mine comes from Walt Disney's
People on Market Street series of seven films. "Wages and Pro-
duction" contains an excellent example of the use of marginalism,
an important but often overlooked economic concept. Like most
video materials, this program cannot carry the whole burden of
teaching that concept alone. But the able teacher should be able
to successfully exploit the presentation.
The best, most comprehensive collection of teacher's guides
comes from the Joint Council on Economic Education. As men-
tioned earlier, the Master Curriculum Guide Series alone includes
nine volumes of lesson materials. Because this series is so impor-
tant, a few explanatory and evaluative comments are necessary.
One major advantage of these materials is that most have
undergone extensive review and field testing by classroom teach-
er essons that do not work well have been adjusted or deleted.
Ir...ddition, the series covers most grade levels and many subject
areas. Three volumes were designed to be used at snecific grade
levels primary, intermediate, and junior high school. The other
volumes are for the secondary grades (mainly, but not exclusively,
high school) and can be used to infuse economics into specific
subjects. The economics content has been carefully reviewed to
maintain strict accuracy. All the materials teachers need to conduct
the lessons are provided, except for some photocopies. There is
no need to use the library to secure a film in order to make the
lesson work. Finally, the lessons used represent a wide range of
strategies. Most volumes contain simulations, games, and case stud-
ies and call for students to work together in a variety of different
grouping arrangements.
In contrast to these significant strengths, the weaknesses are
few and relatively unimportant. Because the series was produced
(indeed continues to be produced) for over a decade, there is an
evident evolution in the format of the individual volumes. The
later volumes are specifically tied to the Framework document,
and have a fairly standard format. The volumes for the primary
and intermediate grades were produced earlier and are unlike each
other or the later volumes. This makes it a little more difficult for
users to select appropriate lessons if their curriculum is tied to
the concept approach of the Framework. In fact, the volume for
the primary grades is explicitly organized around generalizations,
10i
94 Economic Education for Citizenship
an organization that 1 favor, out one that is inconsistent with the
rest of the series and with most economics curricula.
Perhaps the greatest problem is that the series was produced
without a model curriculum as its base. The Framework is an
excellent guide, but is not an effective substitute for a scope and
sequence document. Thus, it is not surprising that when one ex-
amines the series as a whole, there are some missed opportunities.
For instance, the typical expanding horizons elementary social
studies curriculum suggests that the intermediate grades docu-
ment should have included some lessons with explicit connection
to U.S. history and :rorld studies, subjects that are often standard
in the intermediate grades. The forthcoming national model cur-
riculum from the JCEE could lead to a redesign of the volumes in
the series to tie them to the new document.
Some other quality print materials specifically for young ad-
olescents (roughly the middle school grades) were identified in
the Foundation for Teaching Economics (FTE) study mentioned
earlier in this chapter. Thirteen textbooks and fourteen pieces of
supplemental print material were ranked by a panel of teachers
on fifteen criteria. The top six print supplements as determined
by this evaluation are listed below:39
1. Economics for Kids: Ideas for Teaching in the Elementary
Grades
2. Teaching About the Consumer in the Global Marketplace
3. Strategies for Teaching Economics Part II Junior High School
4. Economics Today
5. Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve
6. In the Marketplace: A Basic Unit
There are many other print mate' ials available, too many to
discuss here. However, there are two sources that are not as well
known as they should be. One is the National Depository of Eco-
nomic Education Awards (NDEEA). Each year in a national com-
petition hundreds of teacher-developed economics projects are
submitted for judging. The winners are described in a volume and
copies of the projects can be obtained on request from the de-
pository. Here is a source of many excellent teaching ideas that
is truly low cost and easily accessible. Other information on spe-
cific teaching strategies is available from the previously mentioned
National Economic Education Database. Accessed by microcom-
puter, one can search for instructional strategies by specifying
grade level and economic concept to be taught.
10 2,
Instructional Materials for Economic Literacy 95
There are many other materials: software, simulations, student
workbooks, overhead transparencies, filmstrips, multimedia kits,
and so on. The range and variety is truly impressive; the general
quality is good and improving. The National Survey of Economic
Education 1981 concluded that teachers "... have some very def-
inite needs...." for teaching materials.4° I suggest that were the
survey conducted today, many fewer teachers would express such
a need. There may still be specific areas of weakness. But the larger
need today seems to me to be helping teachers use what is available
to promote citizenship by effectively using economics to reason
about issues.
Summary
This chapter suggests what educators should look for in eval-
uations of materials. Hucksters in the Classroom is used as an
example of what not to do. The importance of explicit criteria
and definitions of those criteria is discussed, especially in the con-
text of claims about inaccuracy and bias. It is noted that in the
absence of clearly defined criteria, materials reviews are almost
valueless to the comumer. The FTE-sponsored study of print ma-
terials for use wit!) adolescent students is cited as a model review
with clear criteria.
Another section examines the economics content of social
studies textbooks. A summary of several reviews is presented that
shows significant problems in texts' presentation of economics.
While the comprehensive reviews on which the summary is based
are dated, a somewhat later review casts doubt on whether texts
have improved significantly. Generally, the texts seem to lack a
consistent theoretical economics base which results in shifting
assumptions and ad hoc theorizing. Furthermore, the texts seem
to contain some outright errors. The pessimistic implications for
economic education for citizenship are noted.
Three reviews of economics textbooks are examined, one
focusing on texts for roughly grades 6-9 and two for the twelfth-
grade high school course. These examinations reveal that there
are some texts of high quality available. Weaknesses in content
presentation in the texts correlate with areas of weakness in stu-
dent test results, suggesting a possible cause and effect relationship.
In addition, the areas of weakness do not bode well for helping
students to examine policy issues, a key aspect of economic edu-
cation for citizenship.
10a
96 Economic Education for Citizenship
The text seems to be accurate and unbiased, according to a
review published by the New York Council on Economic Edu-
cation. This assessment contrasts sharply with charges by Roman-
ish, whose position is examined in some depth because of the
seriousness of the charges and the implications of his arguments
for the debate between the positivists and the revisionists. It is
argued that Romanish's revisionist critique of textbooks is really
an indictment of the academic discipline of economics.
Finally, a brief section on other materials assesses the strengths
and weaknesses of some of the major video series and teacher's
guides, and mentions some materials and teaching strategies that
deserve to be used more frequently.
Notes
' Sheila Harty, Hucksters in the Classroom: A Review of Indusny Propaganda
in the Schools (Washington, D.C., Center for Study of Responsive Law, 1979).
2 Hucksters includes an evaluation checklist for evaluating industry-spon-
sored educational materials" from tile National Association for Industry-Education
Cooperation in Appendix R (p. 177) and seems to endorse the use of the checklist
(p. 7), but there is no indication that Harty used this or any other list of criteria
in her review.
`An example is found on page 22 of Hucksters. It is irrelevant (and a non
sequit "r in the context presented) to the evaluation of materials on nutrition
from cereal makers that three of the cereal producers were charged with anti-
competitive practices.
'Ibid., 76-77; 80.83; 85. These pages contain examples of arguments incl.
Cala to the evaluation of specific materials in the economics education chapter
of the book alone. Similar examples are easily found in the chapters on the other
three areas of materials reviewed (nutrition, energy, and environment).
'See the treatment of the Troy City Schools on pages 78-79. Harty also
includes reproductions of the covers of some materials without evaluating the
materials at all (sec pages 81 and 87), seeming to imply some guilt by the
association to nearby text.
"Ibid., 68.
' Harty provides many other examples of the inconsistent application of
criteria. She criticizes McDonald's labeling of their educational materials with
thc golden arches as product advertising (Ibid., 18). Elsewhere she criticizes
materials for not being clearly labeled as produccd by an industry group or
business (Ibid., 8). Should the corporate source be clearly notcd or not? Her
criterion is unclear.
"Examples of this include: not stating how much water a company uses to
refine iron ore; that "discoveries from deep drilling are often much more prolific
could mean that unit costs of drilling are less, not more, expensive ;" that bag
houses are used more often th'n electrostatic precipitators; that implementation
of pollution control is more expensive than research; and so on (Ibid., 66, 49,
66,66, respectively). In each of the instances cited, and many others, the materials
probably could not reasonably be expected to cover the areas Harty contends
were omittcd, either because they were beyond thc scope of thc topic at hand,
or dealt with relatively minor aspects of the subject being covered.
104
Instructional Materials for Economic Literacy 97
9 Ibid., 77.
" James E. Davis and Mark Schug, Final Report Teaching Economics to
Young Adolescents: Teacher Recommended Print Materials (San Francisco: Foun-
dation for Teaching Economics, 1987).
"See the following reviews: American Economic Association, "Economics
in the Schools: A Report by a Special Textbook Committee on Economic Edu-
cation, "American Economic Review 52 (March 1963): Part 2 Supplement; Albert
Alexander, "Does the American History Textbook Still Wear a Gray Flannel Cover?"
Social Education 33 (M= ch 1963); James O'Neill, Economics in Social Studies
Textbooks An Evaluation of the Economics and the Teaching Strategics in 1 1 th
and 12th U.S and World History Textbooks (New York: Joint Council on Eco-
nomic Education, 1973); Lester Saft, "A Review of High School US. History
Textbooks," unpublished report to the Foundation for Research in Economics
and Education, 1977; Robert S. Main, "Economic MLS-education," California
School Boards (July/August 1979); Steven L Miller and Stephen A. Rose, "The
Great Depression: A Textbook Case of Problems with American History Text-
books," Theory and Research in Social Education 11 (Spring 1983).
" Robert S. Main, "Economics in Social Studies Texts," in National Confer-
ence on Economic Education and the Future of Capitalism Proceedings (Wash.
ington, D.C.: National Association of Manufacturers, 1977), 10-9. Main gives the
procedure for identifying the "leading" texts and lists those that were reviewed.
Four U.S. history texts were reviewed; three sociology; four government; and six
world history. He summarizes the following studies: Salt, "A Review of High
School U.S. History Textbooks;" C.W. Baird, "Economics in World History Texts;"
Gj. Santoni, "Sociology and Economics;" and C.C. Stone, "Issues in Search of
Analysis: A Critique of American Government Textbooks." All were studies pre-
pared under the grant mentioned.
" Robert S. Main, "Economics in Social Studies Texts," 13-14.
" Ibid., 11.
" Ibid., 11.
16 Steven L Miller and Stephen A. Rose, "The Great Depression: A Textbook
Case of Problems with American History Textbooks," and Lester Saft, "A Review
of High School U.S. History Textbooks."
"James E. Davis and Mark Schug, Final Report Teaching Economics to Young
Adolescents: Teacher Recommended Print Materials.
"Ibid., 16.
" Ibid., 13 and 16.
"The National Economic Education Database is still being fully implemented
at this writing. Eventually consumers will be able to access reviews of individual
lessons, teacher's print materials, audio-visual materials, simulations, and text-
books via microcomputer. At present, reviews of economics textbooks have been
completed. A capsule summary of those reviews is available to those unable to
access the system in Curriculum Review 26 (Nov./Dec.1986): 24-28. The Ohio
Council has produced reviews of both economics and consumer economics
(education) texts. These are available from the Ohio Council on Economic Edu
cation, 112 Mount Hall, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 43210.
" "Evaluation of Frequently Used Textbooks for the Twelfth Grade Econom
ics Course," April 1987, available from the New York Council on Economic
Education, Russell Sage College, Troy, NY, 12180. The review also contains
publisher-provided information, but not a review, of two other books. It includes
a table of features of eleven other texts for one semester college courses that
might be appropriate for "above average to superior" high school students, which
were not reviewed. Another valuable review is "1986 Critique of High School
Economics Textbooks," Georgia Council on Economic Education, 1986.
10 .5
98 Economic Education for Citizenship
22 Phillip Saunders, G.L Bach, James D. Calderwood, and W. Lee Hansen, A
Framework for Teaching the Basic Concepts (New York: Joint Council on Eco-
nomic Education, 1984), 11. The concepts used in the New York review do not
fit the Framework exactly. General categories, such as microeconomics and
macroeconomics were added and individual concepts were combined in a few
cases (e.g. monetary and fiscal policy). However, in general the categories are
nearly the same.
2' This presents another oddity about the data in the New York review. The
average rating for the general area of "international" concepts for all textbooks
(3.21) exceeds the average for the specific concepts con' fined (2.9). Indeed the
former is greater than the average rating for any of the specific concepts included
under international. Evidently the reviewers perceived the whole to be greater
than the sum of its parts.
24 The American Heritage Dictionoy, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1976).
24 Bruce A. Romanish, "Modern Secondary Economics Textbooks and Ide-
ological Bias," Theory and Research in Social Education 11 (Spring 1983) 1-
24. 26 William B. Walstad and Michael W. Watts, "A Response to Romanish: Ide-
ological Bias in Secondary Economics Textbooks," Theory and Research in Social
Education 11 (Winter 1984): 25-35; and Bruce A. Romanish, "A Brief Response
to Watts and Walstad," Theory and Research in Social Education 12 (Spring
1984): 49-51.
27 Bruce A. Romanish, "Modern Secondary Economics Textbooks and Ide-
ological Bias," 5.
"' Ibid., 3.
29 Ibid., 4-5.
"Ibid., 5.
" Ibid., 3.
42 Ibid., 5. Romanish cites Angela Webster, "Ideology and 'A' Level Economics
Textbooks," Economics 14 (Fall 1978): 85.
4-4 William B. Walstad and Michael W. Watts, "A Response to Romanish: Ide-
ological Bias in Secondary Economics Textbooks," 28.
" Ibid., 29.
"Bruce A. Romanish, "A Brief Response to Watts and Walstad," 50.
"William B. Walstad and Michael W. Watts, "A Response to Romanish: Ide-
ological Bias in Secondary Economics Textbooks," 34.
"The citations for all of the materials listed here and throughout this section
can be found in the Bibliography of Teaching Materials and ERIC Resources, in
the last section of this book.
" See footnote 17.
"James E. Davis and Mark Schug, Final Report Teaching Economics to
Young Adolescents: Teacher Recommended Print Materials, 12. The complete
reference for the materials cited are listed iii the Bibliography of Teaching Ma-
terials and ERIC Resources, in the 12st section of this book.
"Yankelovich, Skelly and V hite, Inc. National Survey of Economic Edu-
cation 1981 (Phillips Petroleum Co., 1981), 85.
106
Bibliography
Teaching Materials and ERIC
Resources
This listing of educational resources in economics is exten-
sive, but not exhaustive. There is something for just about every
teacher on a wide variety of concepts and subjects. However, a
few disclaimers should be noted. First, the bibliography is not
me- ' to be exhaustive. There are many other individual lessons
and even fully-developed teacher's guides available from a variety
of sources, for instance from individual centers for economic edu-
cation, school districts, and state departments of education. The
absence of any one of these from this list in no way represents a
negative evaluation. Second, inclusion does not necessarily rep-
resent a positive evaluation. Rather, the materials listed here are
some of those that are widely used, or readily available, or of some
historical significance. Not every item is still "in print." However,
many are in the resource libraries of schools or centers for eco-
nomic education. Some that are out of print contain valuable class-
room ideas. In addition, not all of the items include a copyright
or publication date, because this information is not readily avail-
able in some cases.
The materials are organized into eight sections. The first,
"Teacher's Guides," contains print materials that are for teachers
to use in preparing lessons or using other materials. In most in-
stances these items also include student handouts or other ma-
terials. "Student Materials" contains items that are pre6ominantly
for use by students, with relatively little or nothing included for
the teacher. "Video/Films" presents video and film materials re-
gardless of format film, videotape, or filmstrip. The fourth ;,..x-
tion, "Textbooks," contains texts used in middle and senior high
school economics courses. Microcomputer and simulation activi-
ties are combined in a separate section. "Bibliographies and Pe-
riodicals" is self-explanatory. The seventh section, "Other Materials,"
includes materials that do not fit neatly into any of the other
1 0 7
100 Economic Education for Citizenship
categories. Tests are in this section as are some multi-media kits
that have audiovisual, teacher, and student materials. Finally, the
eighth section includes selected journal articles.
The listings are alphabetical by authors or editors. Where no
specific authors or editors are listed, or where there is an extremely
long list of such persons, the item is listed by either its title (if
the publishing organization also created its content) or by pub-
lishing organization (where several organizations evidently partic-
ipated in the creatioc of the material).
The following bibliography includes items that are in the da-
tabase of ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center), which
is a program of the U.S. Department of Education. Items listed
below that include an ED number are available in microfiche or
paper copies from the ERIC Document Reproduction Service
(EDRS). For information about prices, write EDRS, 3900 Wheeler
Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22304 or use one of these telephone
numbers: 1-800-277-3742; 703-823-0500. Abstracts and descrip-
tive information on these ERIC documents are published in Re-
sources in Education (RIE), a monthly publication of the U.S.
Department of Education. Most ERIC documents are also available
for viewing in microfiche at libraries that subscribe to the ERIC
collection. Items listed below that include an EJ number are in-
dexed and annotated in a monthly publication, Current Index to
Journals in Education (CIJE). These journal articles are not avail-
able through EDRS; however, they can be located in the journal
section of most libraries.
Teacher's Guides
Note: Quotation marks are used to denote items that are shorter
than book length, such as pamphlets or booklets. Longer works
are presented with the titles in italics.
"A Good Speech." Stockton, CA: Center for the Development of Economic Edu-
cation, 1983.
"A Twin Purchase." Stockton, CA: to Pr for the Development of Economic
Education, 1983.
Advocates in Brief: A Guide for Teachers. Boston, MA: WGBH, 1979.
An Educator's Guide to the Stock Marke: Game. New York: Security Industry
Association, 1985.
"An Educator's Guide to the Three E's: Energy/Ecology/Economics." Chicago:
Sears, Roebuck and Co., 1980.
Armento, Bever:), C., Lucien Ellington, Jack C. Morgan. and Anthony Suglia (eds.).
Teaching About theJapanese Economy. New York: Joint Council on Economic
Education, 1986.
106
Bibliography 101
Back ler, Alan (ed.). Energy and Economics: Lessons and Activities for the Senior
High Grades. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Department of Public Instruction, 1984.
ED 250 188.
Banaszak, Ronald A. and Elmer U. Clawson. Teaching Strategies: Junior High
School Level. New York: Joint Council on Economic Education, 1981. ED 212
520.
Banaszak, Ronald and James B. O'Neill. Economics Today. San Francisco: CA:
Foundation for Teaching Economics and USA TODAY, 1986.
Barr, Saul Z. Lifegames: Activity-Centered Learning for Early Childhood Edu-
cation in Economics. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing, 1985.
Benson, Phillip (ed.). The Economics of Food and Fiber. Teaching the Economics
of the Food and Fiber Syster Elementary Level. Little Rock, AK Arkansas
Cow ,i Economic Education, 1986.
Bibby, Jt. .., Leon M. Schui, and George G. Watson, Jr. Analyzing Government
Regulation: A Resource Guide. New York: Joint Council on Economic Edu-
cation, 1978.
Brenneke, Judith S. The Big Brown Bag. Washington, D.C.: Food Marketing Foun
dation, 1981.
Brenneke. Judith Staley and John C. Soper (eds.). Making 4 Case for Business:
Cleveland Casebook 1985. Cleveland, OH: Cleveland Center for Economic
Education.
Brown, Mary Jo McGee. Creative Activities in Economics for Middle School
Students. Athens, GA: Center for Economic Education, University of Georgia.
Brown, Mary Jo McGee. Improving Comprehension and Vocabulary Develop-
ment in Economics. Athens, GA: Center for Economic Education, University
of Georgia.
C.e .ter for Economic Education (University of South Florida), Hillsborough County
Public Schools, and Florida Council on Economic Education. Decisionomics.
Tampa, FL: Florida Council, 1983.
Center for Teaching International Relations. Teaching About the Consumer in
the Global Marketplace. 1985.
"Chick-Fil-A: A Case Study for Students in the Early Grades." Atlanta, GA: Georgia
State University Center for Business and Economic Education, 1983.
Chiodo, John J. and Louis Gabbard (eds.). Economics fo Elementary, Middle
and High School Instruction. Dayton, OH: Ohio Council for the Social Studies.
"Common Cents. A Guide for Teachers." Bloomington, IN: Agency for Instruc-
tional Technology, 1977.
Davison, Donald G., (Ed.). Teaching Strategies: Primary Level. New York: Joint
Council on Economic Education, 1977.
Davison, Donald, Richard Gage, John Lewis, and Richard Shepardson. Instruc-
tional Materials for Economic Education (Grades 4-6). Iowa City, IA: The
University of Iowa, Iowa City, 1980.
Dawson, George and Edward C. Prehn. Teaching Economics in American History:
A Teacher's Manual for Secondary Schools. New York: Joint Council on Eco-
nomic Education, 1984. ED 243 774.
Dawson, George G. Developing Reasoning as The Fourth R. New York: Joint
Council on Economic Education, 1982. ED 229 308.
"Economic Educat!on in Minnesota." Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Council on
Economic Education, 1982.
Economics and Decision Making. Enterprise for Education Inc., 1983.
"Energy Adventure." Chicago: Amoco.
Evans, Gordor (ed) Alternatives to the Lecture. Cincinnati, OH: Greater
Cincinnati Center for Economic Education, 1981.
Freeman, Vera. "A Guide to C 'ye & Take." Bloomington, IN: Agency for Instruc-
tional Technology, 1982. 100
102 Economic Education for Citizenship
Gilliard, June V. Curriculum Materials for Teachers. New York: Joint Council on
Economic Education, 1985.
"Have You Heard?" New York: Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
"How We Live." Cleveland, OH: The American Economic Foundation Head-
quarters for Simplified Economics, 1976.
"Ideas and Activities for Integrating Economic Concepts into Elementary Grades "
Jackson, MS: American Enterprise Center, 1983.
Instructional Materials for Economic Education. Iowa City, IA: Iowa Council
on Economic Education, 1981.
"Introducing Economics." Boston, MA: Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 1982.
Kt. Up With the Jones's Kids: A Case Study of the Little People for Students
in the Middle Grades. Atlanta, GA: Georgia State University Center for Businet
and Economic Education, 1983.
Kourilsky, Marilyn. Mini-Society: Experiencing Real-World Economics in the
Elementary School Classrooms. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing,
1983.
Kourilsky, Marilyn. Teaching Strategies: Intermediate Level. New York: Joint
Council on Economic Education, 1978.
Lai, Gary A. and Donald McCurty (eds.). Basic Teaching Units (BTU's, on Energy.
Lir ,. :1, NE: Nebraska Energy Office.
Learner, Lawrence, Paul A. Smith, and Lawrence W. Bloch. Analyzing Health
Care Policy. New York: Joint Council on Economic Education, 1977.
Leavitt, Mary Jo and Harry Leavitt. "The Energy Crisis: An Introduction Teach-
er's Guide." Seattle, WA: Unigraph, 1977.
Leavitt, Mary Jo and Harry Leavitt. "The Energy Crisis: An Introduction Learning
Activity Package." Seattle, WA: Unigraph, 1977.
Leonard, Kenneth, Robert Reinke, Donald Wentworth, George Whitney, and Jon-
athan C. Deming. Energy Trade Offs in the Marketplace. Seattle, WA: Wash-
ington Council on Economic Education, 1980.
Lewis, Charnelle (ed.). The Economics of Food and Fiber: Teaching the Eco-
nomics of the Food and Fiber System Secondary Level. Dekaib, IL: Illinois
Council on Economic Education, 1986.
"Making Money in Middlevillage." New York: Federal Reserve Bank of New York,
1981.
McKeever, Barbara. "Choices," Economic Education Software Series. New York:
Joint Council on Economic Education, 1984.
Meyers, Peter J. II, George Vredeveld, John Lewis, and Peter Harrington. Choice
Suggested Activities to Motivate the Teaching of Elementary Economics. Ste-
vensville, Ml: Educational Service, Inc., 1975.
Mezzaros, Bonnie M. "A Guide to Trade-offs." Bloomington, IN: Agency for In-
structional Technology, 1978.
Miller, Steven I. (ed.), Judith Repke, and Terry L. Smart. Economics and National
Security: Supplemental Lessons for the High School Course. Columbus, OH:
The Mershon Center, 1987. ED number to be assigned.
"Money, Banking, and the Federal Reserve System." Minneapolis, MN: Federal
Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, 1983.
Morton, John S., Stephen Buckles, Steven Miller, David M. Nelson and Edward C.
Prehn. Teaching Strategies: High School Economics Courses. New York: Joint
Council on Economic Education, 1985. ED 261 993.
Nelson, David M. (ed.). The Economics of Energy: A Teaching Kit (Grades 7 -
12). New York: Joint Council on Economic Education, 1983.
Nelson, Phillip J. "Marketplace," Economic Education Software Series. New York:
Joint Council on Economic Education, 1984.
11
Bibliography 103
Niss, James F, Judith Staley Brenneke and John Clow. Teaching Strategies: Basic
Business and Consumer Education. New York: Joint Council on Economic
Education, 1979.
Nomaguchi, Debbie K. (ed.), David M. Nelson, and Laurie Finn. Choices Around
the World. Seattle, WA: Washington Council on Economic Education, 1984.
O'Neill, James B. Teaching Strategies: United States History. New York: Joint
Council on Economic Education, 1980.
O'Neill, James B. Teaching Strategies: World Studies. New York: Joint Council
on Economic Education, 1980.
O'Neill, James B. The Market System: Does It Work? New York: Dow Jones &
Co., 1975.
Rabbior, Gary. Income/Outcome Improving Economic Reasoning Skills. New
York: Joint Council on Economic Education, 1986.
Reinke Robert W. (ed.). Children in the Marketplace Lesson Plans in Economics
frIr Grades 3 and 4. New York: Joint Council on Economic Education, 1986.
Reinke, Robert, McGuire Margit, and Diane W. Reinke. Exploring the Community
Marketplace The Community Publishing Company (Grades 3-4). New York:
Joint Council on Economic Education, 1983.
Rindsburg, Helen. Mathematics & Everyday Economics. Cincinnati, OH: Cincin-
nati Public Schools.
Ristau, Robert, H., Michael Hartoonian, Peter Senn, and Ruth Thomas. Teaching
Strategies. Consumer Economics. New York: Joint Council on Economic Edit-
cation, 1985.
Salemi, Michael K and Sarah Leak. Analyzing Inflation and Its Control A Re-
source Guide. New York: Joint Council on Economic Education, 1984. ED
242 618.
Saunders, Phillip, G.L. Bach, James D. Calderwood, and W. Lee Hansen. A Frame-
work for Teaching the Basic Concepts. New York: Joint Council on Economic
Education, 1984.
Scheer, Lorraine H., John H. George, Ruth I. Butterfield, and John S. Morton.
Analyzing Crime and Crime Control A Resource Guide. New York: Joint
Council on Economic Education, 1981.
Schug, Mark C. (ed.). Economics for Kids: Ideas for Teaching in the Elementary
Grades. New York: Joint Council on Economic Education and National Edu-
cation Association, 1986.
Shwlf, Steven S., Jarrell W. McCracken, and Richard W. Jordan. Simulation and
Reality: An Economic Experience (a semester course -high school level)
Boulder, CO: Colorado Council on Economic Education, 1979.
"Study of Manchester." Storrs, CT: Connecticut Joint Council on Economic Edu-
cation.
Supplementary Materials for Give & Take. New York: Joint Council on Economic
Education.
Swartz, Thomas R , L John Roos, and John S. Morton. Analyzing Tax Policy: A
Resource Guide. New York: Joint Council on Economic Education, 1979.
"Taking Stock in the Future: A Classroom Program for Grades 7-12." New York:
New York Stock Exchange, 1985.
Teaching Economics in One Semester: A Curriculum Resource Package Greens-
boro, NC: North Carolina Council on Economic Education.
"The Life of a Dollar Bill." New York: Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 1983.
"The Road to Roota." Boston: Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 1981.
"The Role of Tools in the Development of the American Economy."
Storrs, CT: Connecticut Joint Council on Economic Education.
"The Story of Wheat Flakes." Stockton, CA: Center for the Development of Eco-
nomic Education, 1983.
1 1 1
104 Economic Education for Citizenship
The World of Economics: Mind over Muffins. San Francisco. Federal Reserve
Bank of San Francisco, 1985.
The World of Economics Money Games. San Francisco: Federal Rcserve Bank
of San Francisco, 1985.
The World of Economics: The ETeam. San Francisco: Federal Reserve Bank of
San Francisco, 1985.
The World of Economics: Wilde About Trade. San Francisco: Federal Reserve
Bank of San Francisco, 1985.
"Too Much, Too Little: A Teacher's Guide." New York: Federal Reserve Bank of
New York, 1985.
Viebrock, Connie J. and Harold E. Ohmart. "Pete's Pizzeria," Economic Education
Software Series. New York: Joint Council on Economic Education, 1984.
Washington Council on Economic Education and Washington Department of
Public Instruction. In the Marketplace: A Basic Unit. 1980.
Wass, Dorothy C. (ed.) Among the Best. Five AwardWinning Projects in Eco-
nomic Education for Kindergarten Sixth Grade. New York: Joint Council
on Economic Education, 1978.
Watts, Michael (ed.). Student Activities to Accompany the People on Market
Street Film Series. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue Research Foundation, 1983. ED
252 485.
Watts, Michael. "A Guide to Tax Whys." Washington, D.C.: Internal Revenue
Service, 1985.
We're More Than Just Flowers: A Case Study of Hall's Flower Shops, Inc, for
Students in the Early Grades. Atlanta, GA: Georgia State University Center for
Business and Economic Education, 1982.
"Wishes and Rainbows." Boston: Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 1981.
Wyatt, George L and Joan O'Bannon. Economics Education: A Guide for Teach-
er4 Grades 9.12. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Education, 1984.
Wyoch, Robert B., David E. Black, Lawrence Kleinhenz, and David Wiget. Bringing
a Global Perspective to Economics. Columbus, OH: The Mershon Center,
1983.
Student Materials
"A Christmas Present for the President " St. Louis: Federal Reserve Bank of St.
Louis, 1985.
"A Day at the Fed." New Yol k: Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 1983
"A Primer on Inflation." New York: Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 1984.
"Basics of Foreign Trade and Exchange." New York: Federal Reserve Bank of New
York, 1983.
Wake, Daniel R., Lester Saft, and Richard L Tontz. "Prices and Markets: An Eco-
nomic Primer." Northridge, CA. Center for Economic Research and Education,
California State University, Northridge, 1982.
"Coins and Currency." New York: Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 1981.
"Colonial New England: The Cashless Society." Boston: Federal Reserve Bank of
Boston, 1975.
"Economic Activity and Markets." St. Louis: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis,
1985.
Economics and Marketing: Learning Activity Packs. Columbus, OH: Interstate
Distributive Education Curriculum Consortium, 1979.
"Employment and Unemployment." Minneapolis, MN: Federal Reserve Bank of
Minneapolis, 1978.
"Federal Reserve Operations." Atlanta, GA: Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 1980.
"Glossary of Federal Reserve Terms." Wasnington D.C.: Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve System, 1985.
YTS;
Bibliography 105
"History at Your Fingertips/Spirit of the Nation." Boston: Federal Reserve Bank
of Boston, 1980.
Hope li, Nancy (ed.). Great Decisions '85. New York: Foreign Policy Association,
1985.
I Bet You Thought ..." New York: Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 1984.
Inflation. Dayton, OH: Domestic Policy Association, 1983. ED 225 903.
Jobs & Productivity. Dayton, OH: Domestic Policy Association, 1983.
"Keeping Our Money Healthy." New York: Federal Reserve Bank of New York,
1984.
"Key to the Gold Vault." New York: Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 1981.
"Money In Colonial New England." Boston: Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 1974.
"Money: Master or Servant?" New York: Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 1984.
"Once Upon a Dime." New York: Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 1985.
Opposing Viewpoints: Sources America's Economy. St. Paul, MN: Greenhaven
Press, Inc., 1986.
"Role of Government in U.S. Economy ... Fiscal Policy." St. Louis: Federal Reserve
Bank of St. Louis, 1985.
The Deficit and the Federal Budget. Dayton, OH: Domestic Policy Association,
1983.
"The Federal Reserve System Purposes and Functions." Washington, D.C.:
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 1984.
"The Federal Reserve System in Brief " San Francisco: Federal Reserve Bank of
San Francisco, 1982.
"The Story of Banks and Thrifts." New York: Federal Reserve Bank of New York,
1985.
"The Story of Checks and Electronic Payments." New York: Federal Reserve Bank
of New York, 1983.
"The Story of Consumer Credit." New York: Federal Reserve Bank of New York,
1980.
"The Story of Foreign Trade and Exchange." New York: Federal Reserve Bank of
New York, 1984.
"The Story of Inflation." New York: Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 1984.
"The Story of Money." New York: Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 1984.
Tontz, Richard L "Energy Crisis?: An Economic Analysis." Northridge, CA: Center
for Economic Research and Education, California State University, Northridge,
1980.
"Ump's Fwat, An Annual Report for Young People." Richmond, VA: Figgie Inter-
national, 1982.
"Who We Are and What We Do." St Louis: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis,
1984.
"You and Your Money." Richmond, VA. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 1981.
Videos/Films
Note: Filmstrips are indicated. All others are film, videotape,
or both.
Advocates in Brief Boston, MA: "/GBH, 1980. 01 the twenty programs, the
following are of the most interest to economics instructors:
"Move to Break OPEC"
"Nuclear Power"
"Seabed Mining"
"Kid's TV"
"Trucking Deregulation"
113
106 Economic Education for Citizenship
"Balanced Budget"
"National Service"
Business in My Town: Everybody's Business. Washington, D.C.: American Insti-
tute of Cooperation, 1981. Filmstrip.
Center for Economic Education, University of Kansas. Infrastructure An Amer-
ican Crisis? Washington D.C.: American General Contractors and Research
Foundation, 1986. Filmstrip.
Chickenfeed A Fowl Look at Money. San Diego, CA: World Research Inc., 1984.
Chickenomics A Fowl Approach to Economics. San Diego, CA: World Research
Inc., 1981.
Cbickenpower: A Fowl Look at Energy Prices. San Diego, CA: World Research
Inc., 1984.
Common Cents. Bloomington, IN: Agency for Instructional Technology, 1977.
Ten programs:
1. "Trading"
2. "Producers and Consumers"
3. "Choices"
4. "Prices"
5. "How Money Works"
6. "Wants and Needs"
7. "Credit"
8. "Banking"
9. "Jobs"
10. "Production"
Economics by Choice. Burbank, CA: Walt Disney Education Media.
Economic Issues Series: 1980.85. San Francisco: Federal Reserve Bank of San
Francisco, 1985. Eleven programs.
1. "Safeguarding Deposits"
2. "The Pacific Rim"
3. "Are We Saving Enough?"
4. "A Primer on Monetary Policy"
5. "International Borrowing"
6. "How Goes the Dollar?"
7. "Demographics of the 1980's"
8. "Oil Pricing"
9. "The Rental Housing Market"
10. "China: Nation in Transition"
11. "Money in the Economy"
Educational Film Corporation and Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates.
Economics USA. Chicago: Annenberg CPB Collection, 1985. Twentyeight pro-
grams.
1. "Resources and Scarcity"
2. "Markets and Prices: Do They Meet Our Needs?"
3. "U.S. Economic Growth: What Is the Gross National Product?"
4. "Booms and Busts: What Causes the Business Cycler
5. "John Maynard Keynes: What Did We Learn from the Great Depressio.1?"
6. "Fiscal Policy: Can We Control the Economy?"
7. "Inflation: How Did the Spiral Begin?"
8. "The Banking System: Why Must It /3( Protected?"
9. "The Federal Reserve: Does Money Matter?"
10. "Stagflation: ',"tly Couldn't We Beat It?"
11. "Productivity: Can We Get More for Less?"
12. "Federal Deficits: Can We Live with Them?"
13. "Monetary Policy: How Well Does it Work?"
14. "Stabilization Policy: Are We Still in Control?"
114
Bibliography 107
15. "The Firm: How Can It Keep Costs Down?"
16. "Supply and Demand: What Sees the Price?"
17. "Perfect Competition and Inelastic Demand: Can the Farmer Make a Profit?"
18. "Economic Efficiency: What Price Controls?"
19. "Monopoly: Who's in Control?"
20. "Oligopolies: Whatever Happened to Price Competition?"
21. "Pollution: How Much Is a Clean Environment Worth?"
22. "Labor and Management: How Do They Come to Terms?"
23. "Profits and Interest: What Is the Best Return?"
24. "Reducing Poverty: What Have We Done?"
25. "Economic Growth: Can We Keep Up the Pace?"
26. "Public Goods and Responsibilities: How Far Should We Go?"
27. "International Trade: For Whose Benefit?"
28. "Exchange Rates: What in the World Is a Dollar Worth?"
Famous Amok The Business Behind the Cookie. Deerfield, IL: Simon and Schuster
Communications, 1985.
Fergi Builds a Business Series. Burbank, CA: Walt Disney Education Media. Four
programs.
1. "If the Fergi Fits, Wear It (or Turning TShirts into Profit)"
2. "Fergi Goes Inc."
3. "Fergi Meets the Challenge"
4. "Fergi Diversifies"
Friedman, Milton. Free to Choose. Erie, PA: Penn Communications, 1981. Ten
Programs:
1. "The Power of the Market"
2. "The Tyranny of Control"
3. "Anatomy of Crisis"
4. "From Cradle to Grave"
5. "Created Equal"
6. "What's Wrong with Our Schools?"
7. "Who Protects the Consumer?"
8. "Who Protects the Worker?"
9. "How to Cure Inflation"
10. "How to Stay Free"
I Can Do It!. Washington, D.C.: National Federation of Independent Business
Foundation, 1986. Three programs:
1. "Ed Lewis"
2. "Stew Leonard"
3. "Judy Wine land"
Inflation. . . Taxing the American Dream. New York. Federal Reserve Bank of
New York, 1980. Filmstrip.
Joint Council on Economic Education and Agency for Instructional Technology.
Tax Whys. Bloomington, IN: Agency for Instructional Technology, 1985. Six
programs:
1. "Taxes Raise Revenues"
2. "Taxes Influence Behavior"
3. "Taxes Involve Conflicting Goals"
4. "Taxes Affect Different Income Groups"
5. "Taxes... Can They Be Shifted?"
6. "Taxes... What Is Fair?"
Joint Council on Economic Education, Agency for Instructional Tecnnology, and
Canadian Foundation for Economic Education. Trade-offs. Bloomington, IN:
Agency for Instructional Technology 1978. Fifteen programs:
1. "Choice"
2. "Malcolm Decides"
115
108 Economic Education for Citizenship
3. "We Decide"
4. "Give and Take"
5. "Less and More"
6. "Working Together"
7. "Does It Pay?"
8. "Learning and Earning"
9. "Why Money?"
10. "To Buy or Not To Buy"
11. "To Sell or Not To Sell"
12. "At What Price?"
13. "How Could That Happen?"
14. "Innocent Bystanders"
15. "Helping Out"
Joint Council on Economic Education, Agency for Instructional Technology, and
Canadian Foundation for Economic Education. Give & Take. Bloomington, IN:
Agency for Instructional Technology, 1982. Twelve programs:
1. "You Choose: Scarcity and Personal Decision Making"
2. "We Choose: Scarcity and Social Decision Making"
3. "Let's Save: Opportunity Cost"
4. "Creditwise: Opportunity Cost"
5. "Where Do jobs Come From?"
6. "A Key to Productivity: Human Capital"
7. "Private or Public? Public Goods and Services"
8. "Changing Taxes: Public Goods and Services"
9. "Market Prices: Supply and Demand"
10. "Changing Market: Supply and Demand"
11. "Take Your Choice: Substitution"
12. "Why Competition? Market Structure"
Kingdom of Mocha. Chicago: Amoco.
Making Money Work. New York: Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 1984.
Filmstrip.
Money: Summing It Up. St. Louis: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 1982.
Mrs Peabody's Beach. Burbank, CA: Walt Disney Education Media.
Our Economy How It Works. Westminster, MD: Random House, Inc., 1984.
Filmstrips and videos. Six programs:
1. The Jeans Story: Added Resources, Added Value"
2. "From Wheat to Bread: HighTech Efficiency, HighYield Productivity
3. "The Story of Paper: Managing People, Managing Resources"
4. "The Story of Petroleum: Critical Risks, Potential Profits"
5. "Money and the Banking System: The Fed Acts, Banks React"
6. "The Role of Government in the Economy: Fiscal Policies, Market Realities"
Return to Mocha. Chicago: Amoco, 1986.
The People on Market Street. Burbank, CA: Walt Disney Education Media, 1977.
Seven programs.
1. "Scarcity and Planning"
2. "Cost"
3. "Demand"
4. "Supply"
5. "Market Clearing Price"
6. "Wages and Production"
7. "Property Rights and Pollution"
The Role of Commercial Banking in the U.S. Chicago: Federal Reserve Bank of
Chicago, 1976. Filmstrip.
Scrooge McDuck and Money. Burbank, CA: Walt Disney Education Medi?
116
Bibliography 109
The World of Economics Mind over Muffins. San Francisco: Federal Reserve
Bank of San Francisco, 1985.
The World of Economics Money Games. San Francisco: Federal Reserve Bank
of San Francisco, 1985
The World of Economics The E-Team. San Francisco: Federal Reserve Bank of
San Francisco, 1985.
The World of Economics Wilde About Trade. San Francisco: Federal Reserve
Bank of San Francisco, 1985.
The World of Work. Washington, D.C.: American Iron and Steel Institute, 1983.
Filmst-ip.
Textbooks
Middle school and junior high school
Consumer Action: Personal Business Management. Houghton Mifflin Publishing
Co., 1986.
Decisions: Making Personal Choices. EMC Corp., 1985.
Discovering Economics. D.O.K. Publishers, 1982.
Economics and the American Free Enterprise System. Globe Book Co., 1983.
Economics and the Free Enterprise System. Coronado Publishing Co., 1982.
Economics Today and Tomorrow. Scribner Educational Publishers/MacMillan,
1984.
Economics It's Your Business. New Readers Press, 1986.
Free Enterprise in America. Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1977.
Free Enterprise The American Economic System. Laidlaw Brothers, 1984.
Introduction to the Social Sciences. Allyn and Bacon, 1985.
Our Economy How It Works. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1984.
Understanding Our Economy. J. Weston Walch, 1977.
What Citizens Need to Know About Economics. Social Issues Resource Series,
1983.
Twelfth grade
Abramowitz, Atkins, and Rogers. Economics and the Free Enterprise System.
Antell, Gerson. Econondcs: Institutions and Analysis. Amsco Publications, 1985.
Clawson, Elmer. Our Economy: How It Works.
Clayton, Gary and James Brown. Economics: Principles and Practices. Charles
E. Merrill, 1983.
Hodgetts, Richard M. and Terry L Smart. Essentials of Economics and Free
Enterprise. AddisonWesley, 1987.
Junior Achievement. Applied Economics.
Miller, Roger LeRoy Economics: Today and Tomorrow. Harper & Row, 1984.
Mings, Turley. The Study of Economics: Principles, Concepts and Applications.
Dushkin, 1987.
Olsen, Hailstones. Economics Principles and Applications.
Petersen, Lewis. Free Enterprise Today.
Sampson, Roy and Ira Marienhoff. The American Economy: Analysis, Issues, and
Principles. Houghton Mifflin, 1986.
Smith, Allen. Understanding Economics. Random House, 1986.
Smith, Robert F., Michael Watts and Vivian Hogan. The American Economic
System. Laidiaw Bros., 1987.
Watson, George. Economics. McDougal, Littel & Co., 1986.
Wilson, J. Holton and J.R. Clark. Economics: The Science of Cosi Benefit and
Choice. South-Western, 1984.
117
110 Economic Education for Citizenship
Wolken, Lawrence and Janet Glocker. Invitation to Economics. Scott, Foresman,
1985.
Software and Simulations
Note: This list is a mere sample since comprehensive lists are
readily available. See the "Periodicals and Bibliography" section
for the software catalog by Waistad, Hallows, and Ross and the
guide to simulations by Wilson and Schug. Print simulations are
denoted with an "S;" all others are software.
Baldicer Game. Richmond, VA: John Knox Press. S.
Coffee the Rules of the Game and You. New York: The Christophers. S.
Economic System. IndianarAis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill Educational Publishing. S.
Escape from Fraxla. Minneapolis, MN: Federal Reserve Bank of Minrimpolis,
1986.
"Game of Farming," Geography in an Urban Age High School Geography Project.
New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1979. S.
Glazier, Ray. Settle or Strike Collective Bargaining Simulation. Cambridge, MA:
Abt Associates, 1974. S.
Guns and Butter. Del Mar, CA: Simile II. S.
Import. Del Mar, CA: Simile II. S.
International Trade. Lakeside, CA: Interact. S.
International Trade An Economics Decision Game. Cranford, NJ.: Didactic Sys-
tems, Inc. S.
Island. New York: Friendship Press. S.
Jeans Factory. Lawrence, Kansas: Center for Economic Education, University of
Kansas.
Joint Council on Economic Education, Agency for Instructional Technology, and
Canadian Foundation for Economic Education. Income/Outcome. Blooming-
ton, IN: Agency for Instructional Technology, 1986.
Lewis, John L and Peter Sem. Energy Task Force. New York: Joint Council on
Economic Education, 1986.
McKeever, Barbara, John L Lewis, and Peter Senn. Choices. New York: Joint
Council on Economic Education, 1984.
Nappi, Andrew T. You're the Banker. Minneapolis, MN: Federal Reserve Bank of
Minneapolis, 1977. S.
Nelson, Phillip J., John L Lewis, and Peter Senn. Marketplace. New York: Joint
Council on Economic Education, 1984.
Profit: A Simulation of Modern Trading in Southeast Asia. Hanover, NH: Amer
ican Universities Field Staff. S.
Reinke, Diane and Margit McGuire. The Book Company. Seattle, WA: Washington
Council on Economic Education, 1986.
Starpower. Dei Mar, CA: Simile II. S.
Survival. Tampa, FL: Florida Council on Economic Education. S.
The Baseball Game A Market Place Learning Activity. Richmond, VA: Figgie
International, 1982. S.
The Manor Game. Bloomington, IN: History Games Co. S.
The Notnad Game. Bloomington, IN: History Games Co. S.
The Social Mobility Game. Bloomington, IN: History Games Co. S.
Triangle Trade (The Rum and Riches Game). Corvallis, OR: Simulation Systems.
S.
Tightrope. El Paso, CA: El Paso Public Schools. S.
110
Bibliography 111
Viebrock, Connie J., Harold E. Ohmart, John L Lewis, and Peter Senn. Pete's
Pizzeria. New York: Joint Council on Economic Education, 1984.
Bibliographies and Periodicals
Note: Periodicals are denoted with a "P;" all others are bib-
liographies.
"Feder.3.1 Reserve System Public Information Materials." Washington D.C.: Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 1986.
Hendricks, Robert, George G. Dawson, and Minda M. Manila. Learning Economics
Through Children's Stories. New York: Joint Council on Economic Education,
1986.
"Instructional Materials of the Federal Reserve System." Washington, D.C., 1984.
Joint Council on Economic Education. The Elementary Economist. New York:
Joint Council on Economic Education. P.
Joint Council on Economic Education. The Senior Economist. New York: Joint
Council on Economic Education. P.
Lewis, Charnelle (ed.). "Elementary Economics: A Bibliography." Chicago: Federal
Reserve Bank of Chicago. 1985.
Monetary Deride St. Louis: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. P.
National Economic Trends. St Louis: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, P.
Quattro, Edward. "Entrepreneurial Education Resource Guide." Cleveland, OH:
Cleveland Center for Economic Education, 1986.
Sclim, M.A. (ed.). "Annotated Bibliography of Teaching Materials for Global Eco-
nomics." St Paul, MN: Center for Economic Education, College of St Paul.
Weekly Letter. San Francisco: Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. P.
Walstad, William, Karen S. Hallows and David Ross. An Annotated Catalog of
MicrocomputerSoftware in Economics. New York: Joint Council on Economic
Education, 1986.
Wilson, Cathy R. and Mark C. Schug. A Guide to Games and Simulations for
Teaching Economics. New York: Joint Council on Economic Education, 1979.
"World Energy Outlook Through 2000." Wilmington, DE.: Conoco, Inc. P.
Other Materials
Banaszak, Ronald A. (ed.). Directory of Organizations Providing Business and
Economic Education Information. San Francisco, CA: Foundation for Teach-
.ng Economics, 1986.
Banaszak, Ronald A. and Dennis C. Brennan. Teaching Economics Content and
Strategies. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1983.
Besant, Lloyd and Nancy Keefer (eds.). Commodity Markets. Chicago: Chicago
Board of Trade, 1983. (background teacher's guide, and materials).
Besant, Lloyd and Nancy Keefer (eds.). The Marketplace. Chicago: Chicago Board
of Trade, 1983. (background teacher's guide, and materials).
Brenneke, Judith Staley (ed.) Consumer Education and Economic Education in
the Public Schools. New York. Joint Council on Economic Education, 1981.
(teacher information).
"Century of Entrepreneurs." San Mateo, CA: National Federation of Independent
Business Research and Economic Education, 1981. (poster).
Chizmar, John F. and Ronald S. Halinski. Basic Economics Test (Grades 4.6).
New York: Joint Council on Economic Education, 1981.
Davis, James E. (ed.) Teaching Economics to Young Adolescents A Research-
Based Rationale. San Francisco, CA: Foundation for Teaching Economics, 1987.
119
112 Economic Education for Citizenship
Disney's Wide World of Economics and Enterprise. Burbank, CA: Walt Disney
Educational Media Co., 1978. (multimedia kit).
Ford, Lucille G., University Economics: Guide for Education Majors. Cleveland,
OH: Martha Holden Jennings Foundation, 1979. (teacher information).
"I, Pencil." Irving-on-Hudson, NY.: Foundation for Economic Education, Inc.,
1958. (brief handout).
"Keys for Busfaess Forecasting." Richmond, VA: Federal Reserve Bank of Rich-
mond, 1980. (teacher information).
Kourilsky, Marilyn. Understanding Economics Overview for Teachers Experi-
ences for Students. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing, 1983. (teacher
information).
Marshall, Ray and Brian Rungeling. The Role of Unions in the American Economy.
New York: joint Council on Economic Education, 1984. ( teacher information ).
ED 255 434.
Miller, Steven L "An Economic Perspective," in M. Eugene Gillion and Raymond
H. Muessig (eds.). Perspectives of Global Education. Columbus, OH: The Ohio
State University, 1981. (teacher information).
Once Upon a Dime. New York: Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 1982. (mul-
timedia kit).
Prehn, Edward C. Teaching High School Economics. New York: New York Coun-
cil on Economic Education, 1981. (teacher information).
Schug, Mark (ed.). Economics in the School Curriculum, K-12. New York: joint
Council on Economic Education and National Education Association, 1985.
(teacher information).
Soper, John C. and William Walstad. Test of Economic Literacy (Grades 11-12).
New York: joint Council on Economic Education, 1986.
Walstad, William and John C. Soper. Test of Economic Knowledge (Grades 7-9).
New York: joint Council on Economic Education and Foundation for Teaching
Economics, 1987.
Warmke, Roman F., Raymond H. Muessig, and Steven L Miller The Study and
Teaching of Economics. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing, 1980.
(teacher information).
Weaver, Kenneth F. (ed.) Energy: Facing up to the Problem, Getting Down to
Solutions. Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Society, 1981. (teacher in-
formation).
"What's the Difference." San Mateo, CA: National Federation of Independent
Business Research and Economic Education, 1981. (poster).
Winnie the Pooh and the Value of Things. Burbank, CA: Walt Disney Educational
Media Co., 1978. (multimedia kit).
Witherill, Robert D. Economic Building Blocks: How to Teach Economics in
the Elementary School. Portland, ME.. University of Maine at Portland-Gorham,
1977. (teacher information).
Journal Articles
Ajello, Anna-Marie and others. "Teaching Economics in Primary School: The
Concepts of Work and Profit." International journal of Behavioral Devel-
opment 10 (March 1987): 51.70. EJ 357 158.
Banaszalc, Ronald A. "Economics for Junior High School Students." Social Studies
Review 24 (Spring 1985): 49-55. EJ 316 065.
Beckman, Steven "A Microcomputer Program that Simulates the Baumol-Tobin
Transactions Demand for Money." journal of Economic Education 18 (Sum-
mer 1987): 309-17. EJ 358 583.
1.20
Bibliography 113
Brenneke, Judith-Staley "Ways to Integrate Economics into Business Education
Courses." Journal of BusinessEduceition 58 (February 1983): 169-72. EJ 277
536.
Chizmar, John F.; Halinski, Ronald S. "Performance in the AdSiC Economics Test"
(BET) and "Trade- Offs. " Journal of Economic Education 14 (Winter 1983).
18-29. EJ 275 290.
DeBrock, Larry M "Selected Current Data Sources." Journal of Economic Edu-
cation 18 (Summer 1987): 345-350. EJ 358 586.
Deery, Ruth "Classroom Routines: Make Them Pay Off Big!" Social Education
48 (February 1984): 138-41. EJ 294 079.
Fels, Rendigs "Fundamental Economic Concepts-Another Perspective: A Com-
ment." Journal of Economic Education 18 (Spring 1987): 121-26. EJ 356
143.
Hansen, Lee IV. "Annual Report of the Committee on Economic Education of the
American Economic Association. " Journal of Economic Education 18 (Spring
19E7): 260.62. EJ 356 161.
Hansen, Lee W. "The Scope of Microeconomics: A Comment." Journal of Eco-
nomic Education 18 (Spring 1987): 150-54. EJ 356 146.
Heilbroner, Robert L "Fundamental Economic Concepts-Another Perspective."
Journal of Economic Education 18 (Spring 1987): I I 1-20. EJ 356 142.
Kourilsky, Marilyn; Ballard-Campbell, Michael "Mini-Society: An Individualized
Social Studies Program for Children of Low, Middle, and High Ability." Social
Studies 75 (September-October 1984): 224-28. EJ 305 961.
Kourilsky, Marilyn "School Reform: The Role of the Economic Education." Eco-
nomic Education 17 (Summer 1986): 213.17. EJ 338 250.
Laney, James D. "Hotdogaronia: Mini-Society In A Texas Classroom." Southwest-
ern Journal of Social Education 15 (SpringSummer 1985): 15-18. Ej 336
763.
Laughlin, Margaret A. "Infusion-No Addition: Infusing Economics in the Ele-
mentary Curriculum." Social Studies Review 23 (Fall 1983): 29-32. EJ 290
595.
Lawson, Luther D.; O'Donnell, Margaret G. "Identifying Factors That Influenc
the Learning of Economics: A Sixth-Grade Case Study." Economics Education
17 (Summer 1986): 177.85. EJ 338 244.
Longshaw, John M. "Teaching Trade Union Studies in a Primary School." Eco-
nomics 23 (Summer 1986): 65-66. EJ 338 301.
MacDowell, Michael A. "Response to L Scott Miller." Economic Education 17
(Summer 1986): 210-12. EJ 338 249.
Manzer, John P. "New Economic Education Resources for Business Educators."
Business Education Forum 41 (January 1987): 8-10. Ej 344 815.
Mathis, Edward J. "How A Market Operates: A Classroom Exercise in Supply and
Demand." Social Studies 78 (July-August 1987): 173-77. EJ 357 444.
Muma, Patrick A. "Where Economists Teach." International Social Science Jour-
nal 39 (August 1987): 425-33. EJ 358 594.
O'Donnell, Margaret G. "Using the History of Economic Ideas to Teach Social
Studies." Social Studies 78 (May-.Inne 1987): 118-22. EJ 356 164.
Reque, Barbara "Making Choices: StudyingYour Community's Economic History."
Social Education 47 (January 1983): 32-35. EJ 275 252.
Samuelson, Paul A. "How Economics Has Changed." Journal of Economic Edu-
cation 18 (Spring 1987): 107-10. EJ 356 141.
Schug, Mark C. "Children's Understanding of Economics." Elementary School
Journal 87 (May 1987): 507-18. EJ 355 923.
Schug, Mark C.; Birkey, C. Jean "The Development of Children's Economic Rea-
soning." Theory and Research in Social Education 13 (Spring 1985): 31-42.
EJ 317 507.
1 2 1
114 Economic Education for Citizenship
Soper, John C.; Brenneke, Judith-Staley "The Test of Economic Literacy and an
Evaluation of the DEEP System." Journal of Economic Education 12 (Summer
1981): 1-14. EJ 250 370.
Strober, Myra H. "The Scope of Microeconomics: Implications for Economic
Education." Journal of Economic Education 18 (Spring 1987): 135-49. Ei
356 145.
VanSickle, Ronald L "Economics Goes to the Fair: Problems for Projects." Georgia
Social Science Journal 18 (Summer 1987): 29-36. EJ 358 555.
Walstad, William; Watts, Michael "Teaching Economics in the Schools: A Review
of Survey Education."Journa; ofEconomic Education 16 (Spring 1985): 135-
46. EJ 319 114.
Revleu of MIST. School Economics tertbooks
Author %fee Mira Peblisher u.nkkin
Th. styli/ nt Commies. principle.. oraphistypikotimx Copyrieht Oate 1447
leedirellity(irvIe and bawls) t.soll4111
Grade 00141,4 Level yi
I. Criteria !scalpel Coed ak Poor lac. ilm
Physical Chatactialstlef
I. Quality of coestrection 132
2. **edibility if typo style 32
3. Orgaoltatiee end layout 32
1. Vissals, well located. variety 32
S. Stedent Weal 32
C. Moles racist, ethnic and
setlft stereotypia, 032
7. Positive leaped' soma and
mirteritles 402
II. testate
S. Cartel Or retest eaarphel 032
O. (sssalts relevalt to 9sAssalltstlan
and *strict cadepts 32
(0. Wm case sleety
U. Rewires higher level thlaciee skills (I) i
II. Toriety ot stedent Octivitles
13. Chat., letredoctles sal saaary 22
!S. CIOSSOry 2
14. !tried vleepoletf. voktated 1
II. IllblioprePhY 32
111. Sepelimeet41 saterlais end ales
I?. TOOtletr4 Wide 4al' 2
14. Workbook. stelly guides. studeot
63 2
It. tests 42
handoutf 4
IV. Centtft,
22. Mareeteneelcs 32
20. task [Ceramic Concepts 32
21. NIcreeceecelcs U32
23. Other !ceramic system
21. Neeeent and methods 42
2S. Cootrasties (camcalc Views 4
2
aser 2
t44.0 Na
--. --
1001 Evalaillee Pests OLO &erect for the Criteria (total)
Hord Cover. 110 IC page* ZS
Pim or olnue Caro Indicate that loilvideol reviewers did oot neon ord
Petition irdicetoe Inn direction of (to dlsogroment.
Compoing Traloei Fuedroattal tweets
fundamental Economic
Concepts Stressed Adequately
Covered tightly
Covered bottled
[Miceli Correctly
Used Unbiased
Scarcity IXX
Cleactuelty Cost
and trade Otts xit x
Productivity XX
Ecowoolc Systems 4- IiX
Economic Institution
and treadle's x- iX
Exchange. Meaty eel
Interdepeodence X.IiX
NicroeceeemIcs it IYX
Ks and Prices xX
Spelt' and benamd XAX
Ccepelltion end
Racket Stngterit it- xx
!mow OlstrIbutIon it
41
iX
Ralet !attires XIiX
the Role of Coveroomet I. Iis
Karotcomenlcs XiX
Gross Natlecal Predoct xIiX
&we'll* Spey
44d Oesaad xIxI
lhaeloyment it iX
fellatio. $ Detlatiee 4iX
%eatery Policy o4
fiscal relict .4 X
leteroatiesal Economic
Concepts it 7
Absolute sal Capaatlyt
A4,1.18,0 Settlers to
Trate it iX
SIMKO et Parcels sal
a[mmo Amy XX
1 tttttt tlenal Aspects et
Growth arid Stobility
it X
Aplus t) irdketoe that we rockier tow hiohnr than the others
A minus (-1 hdl,vtoe fiat one revimeor yet torr thee the ahem
123 BEST COPY AVAILAtiLL
tithe: the Stogy of (commies
Anther: barley MINIS
While this tent sight be best classified as malytIcal, II it done
palalessly and Fre:mostly la historical. consumer. probleo.solving
contest. the °rpm sssss on Is Moller to most one smelter college
texts! fonedatims, eicrommoolcs. macroeconomics mod international
mew Nowever. It Is defirllety leered to the brood range of
aver Molts, perhaps slightly ahem oversee.
this r Is physlially attractive. eohamed by appropriate use of
color rusts. graphs. photos sod clots for mplosis la the tent
end settle, off special teatiores. flak Wes ere presented in bold.
face and loportamt vocabelary term are mderlhod lightly. Marginal
netts relators* ealn Idea for Use stednet.
Each chapter bevies with a csoteepermy melte:Mies or latroductory
article that Is designed to captors the stodeots atteetico loch as
clear:Mt* Yoshio; aid the break op A1111. Chapter Previews identi-
(Om ecommic concepts and learelog objectives follow. Within the
clopteraftse applications er case studies ollmg sea examples as
McOmald's, rock cc:Kerte and Soviet free enterprise expelvd Moo the
concepts. Them are follood by thought mestims at several levels
of difficulty. Other features food In may chapters ere hportent
ecommists. historical temples we cerreat ecommic treads. Chapter
review eaterlals loctinde a mammy males, study mestiom which are
troll thought premblog, eercises and malysis' lovelviag Individual
activities owl an emotated bibliography. All the adorn are better
thowght eat arra placed Mom most teats. to the appeodis, charts and
mobs are enplalned clearly. the glossary Includes swim page ref-
erences set set to bolder type far easy refereoce.
Smplemeetery eateries loclinde a 'Student iforlboot. 'Testing."
'Iostructor's ividt."IlIcro.Cometer Test Cewerater Program. 'Micro-
Computer Study Guide Progrormd an '141ln:ell:mat iron:carom, Set.
At the time Of this review eoly the first chapter of the first three
item was available. Ike reviewers lead these to be disappointing.
fa each tasty/me the complalats were Mot the mterial drew almost
emlysively from the test. contaloed so teaching strategies and that
very few of the mestims reqvired critical thine:lag.
Illwotatloos from Reviewers
Favorable: 'the visoll appeal of the test, from graphs and charts
to pictures eon Mtn ttttt ons Is eohmmed by the t
use of mati.color."
'The teat Is loaded with feat: es that help students
umiestand concepts eon stimulate Interest.
%favorable: 'the Somewhat 'heavy' eta of ratios and graphs as 'Ws.
:cation tools is shyly not going to be effective with the
earglaal student.'
the teacher's guide Is disappointing (based on one
chapter saaple).. it merely provides an overview of the
chapter.; .and answers to the learning ob./
the author is an economist at Say Jose State University and director
of the of (coneolc CducatIon at the same coon.
I
Accuracy of Content
hotels's('
.t80 ((Ore
S.7
y 4.accurate and
good coverage
tooter of evaluations
/5-